Leapfrog MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the external dependency (CDP endpoint), security boundary (isolated session vs real browser), data scope (cookies, auth sessions), and capture mechanism. Could improve by mentioning error handling (e.g., Chrome not running) or idempotency (overwriting existing profiles).

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes the core operation, second explains benefits/constraints, third provides essential setup command. Information density is high with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Adequately covers the complex multi-step workflow (Chrome setup, CDP connection, cookie extraction, profile creation) despite having no output schema or annotations. The Chrome startup command is crucial context for a tool requiring external process coordination. Minor gap: doesn't specify behavior when profile name already exists.

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 has 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds meaningful context: explains 'cdp' via the Chrome startup command, clarifies 'name' as the Leapfrog profile destination, and implies 'domains' through the cookie capture explanation. Elevates understanding beyond dry schema descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verbs (connect, capture, save) and clearly identifies the source resource (Chrome browser via CDP) and target (Leapfrog profile). It distinguishes from generic profile creation by specifying the Chrome CDP import mechanism and outcomes (Google auth, reCAPTCHA trust).

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?

Provides clear prerequisites (Chrome must be started with --remote-debugging-port=9222) and explains the value proposition (real auth in isolated session). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like profile_warm or session_create, or when not to use it (e.g., if Chrome isn't available).

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