Leapfrog MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses that capture starts automatically and enumerates the available log levels. However, it omits critical behavioral details such as message retention duration, buffer limits, whether retrieval is destructive (clears the log), or the return format structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of three efficient sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (viewing console messages), followed by behavioral setup (auto-capture), and ends with practical usage guidance (filter usage). Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality. However, for a debugging tool with no annotations, it should disclose behavioral traits like persistence or side effects to be considered complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both sessionId and level are documented in the schema). The description reinforces the level parameter's purpose by mentioning the filter use case, but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'View' with the resource 'browser console messages' and explicitly lists the supported log levels (log, warn, error, info, debug). While it clearly defines the domain, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool network_log, though the distinction is implied by the message types listed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful operational context stating that 'Console capture starts automatically when a session is created,' which establishes prerequisites. It also gives practical advice to 'Use level filter to focus on errors or warnings.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like network_log or screenshot for debugging.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.