Leapfrog MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly documents the return format (base64 inline) and the optional disk-saving behavior, which is critical given no output schema exists. However, it omits whether this blocks until page is stable, the image format (PNG/JPEG), and whether the operation modifies any state.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return value documentation, then optional side-effect (savePath). Every sentence earns its place in guiding tool selection and invocation.

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 100% schema coverage and 4 parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. The explanation of the base64 return compensates for the missing output schema. However, gaps remain regarding image format specifics, page stability waiting behavior, and safety guarantees (read-only nature) that annotations would typically provide.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by linking 'savePath' to the disk-saving functionality ('Optionally save to disk with savePath'), reinforcing the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's literal description. No additional semantic context is provided for 'selector' or 'fullPage' nuances.

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 clearly states the core action ('Capture a screenshot') and resource ('current page'), and specifies the output format (base64 inline). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'snapshot' (likely a DOM snapshot), which could cause selection confusion in browser automation contexts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use 'fullPage' versus 'selector', when to specify 'savePath' versus relying on inline returns, or when to choose this over 'snapshot'. The description states what parameters exist but not the decision criteria for using them.

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