Camoufox MCP

by baixianger

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap that could cause confusion. For example, 'evaluate_isolated' and 'evaluate_mainworld' both execute JavaScript but in different contexts, which is clarified in descriptions, yet their similar names might lead to misselection. Tools like 'fill' and 'fill_form' also have overlapping functionality, though 'fill_form' handles multiple fields. Overall, descriptions help differentiate, but some boundaries are unclear.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'clear_console_logs', 'get_page_text', 'start_recording'), making them predictable and readable. There are minor deviations, such as 'evaluate_isolated' and 'evaluate_mainworld' using adjectives instead of nouns, and 'init_user_config' using 'init' instead of a more standard verb like 'initialize'. However, the overall naming scheme is coherent and easy to follow.
Tool Count2/5
With 36 tools, the count is excessive for a browser automation server, leading to potential cognitive overload and reduced usability. A typical well-scoped server in this domain should have 10-20 tools; this set includes many granular operations (e.g., separate tools for starting/stopping console and network capture) that could be consolidated. The high number makes the tool surface feel heavy and less intuitive for agents.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for browser automation, including navigation, interaction (click, hover, drag), form handling, JavaScript execution, logging, network control, and state management. It supports full CRUD-like operations for logs and captures, and there are no obvious gaps—tools like 'wait_for' and 'wait_for_navigation' ensure robust workflow support. The domain is well-covered without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether it affects ongoing captures, or what confirmation/response to expect. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words with zero wasted language. The description is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place by specifying what gets cleared (network logs) and that they are 'captured' (implying prior action).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails (deletion? reset?), whether there are side effects, what happens if no logs exist, or what the agent should expect after invocation. Given the complexity of a mutation operation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'pageId' is fully described in the schema as 'Page ID (uses active page if not specified)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear captured network logs' clearly states the action (clear) and resource (captured network logs). It distinguishes from sibling 'clear_console_logs' by specifying network logs rather than console logs. However, it doesn't specify what 'captured' means or the scope of clearing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this clears network logs (vs console logs), there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether network capture must be active), timing considerations, or what happens after clearing. The description alone doesn't help an agent decide when this operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions clicking an element but doesn't describe what happens after the click (e.g., page navigation, UI changes), error conditions, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the behavioral consequences of clicking, error handling, or what 'snapshot' refers to in context. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'uid' comes from a snapshot, which is partially covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('click') and target ('an element by its UID from snapshot'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'hover' or 'press_key', which would require more differentiation for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hover' or 'press_key', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a snapshot first. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'close' a page/tab, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify consequences (e.g., if the page is removed from memory, if data is lost, or if it requires specific permissions). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs a mutation (closing a page/tab) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral effects, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a browser automation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'pageId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the page to close'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as how to obtain the pageId or format requirements, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Close a browser page/tab' clearly states the action (close) and target (browser page/tab), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'select_page' or 'list_pages' that also involve page management, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an open page or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'new_page' or 'navigate_page', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the drag action but doesn't explain what happens during or after the drag (e.g., whether it triggers events, requires specific element states, or has side effects like page changes). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a drag operation (which likely involves UI interactions and potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (pageId, fromUid, toUid). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or detracting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('drag') and the resources involved ('an element to another element'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling actions like 'click' or 'hover' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' or 'hover', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing elements to be visible or interactable. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this triggers form submission events, validation, or side effects; what happens if the UID doesn't exist; whether it works on disabled/readonly fields; or error conditions. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context needed for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool (filling form fields) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important contextual information: what the tool returns (success/failure indicators), error conditions, side effects, or prerequisites (needing a snapshot first). The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and operational context needed for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'UID from snapshot' which slightly clarifies the uid parameter context, but doesn't provide additional semantic information about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fill') and target ('form field') with specific element types mentioned (input, textarea, select). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fill_form' by specifying individual field filling via UID rather than form-level operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other form-related tools beyond naming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fill_form' or other form interaction tools. The description mentions the UID comes from a snapshot, implying prerequisite steps, but doesn't state this explicitly or provide context about appropriate use cases versus other form-filling approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read/write operation, what happens on failure, if it requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with the page. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'fill' entails (e.g., setting values, triggering events), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of form interaction and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch operations through 'multiple...at once', which aligns with the 'fields' array parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fill multiple form fields at once' clearly states the action (fill) and resource (form fields), with the 'multiple...at once' phrase distinguishing it from the simpler 'fill' sibling tool. However, it doesn't specify what type of form (e.g., web form, PDF) or context, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the simpler 'fill' sibling tool, nor about prerequisites like needing an active page or form. The description implies batch operations but doesn't explicitly state this as the distinguishing factor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get captured console messages' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify if it requires active capture, what happens if no capture is running, or the format/timing of returned data. It mentions 'captured' which hints at prerequisites but lacks detail on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word ('Get', 'captured', 'console messages') contributes essential information, making it efficient and immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'captured' entails (e.g., dependency on 'start_console_capture'), the structure of returned messages, or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. Given the complexity and lack of structured coverage, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's details about filtering by types, pattern, limit, etc. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like example usage or parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get captured console messages' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('captured console messages'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_console_logs' by focusing on retrieval rather than clearing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_network_logs' or 'get_page_text' which are different data sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to start console capture first (implied by 'captured'), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_logs' for different log types or 'get_page_text' for different data. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'extract' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific page states, potential errors if no framework is detected, or the format of the extracted state. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with web frameworks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the extracted state looks like, error conditions, or dependencies, which are crucial for a tool dealing with framework-specific data extraction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (one parameter has a description, one does not). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'hydration state' entails or how 'auto' detection works. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'extract' and the resource 'Next.js/Nuxt.js hydration state from the page', which is specific about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_text' or 'take_snapshot', which might also retrieve page content but in different forms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a page with a supported framework loaded, or compare it to siblings like 'get_page_text' for general content extraction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it returns real-time or historical data, potential performance impacts, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('captured network request logs'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (structure, format, or content), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'start_network_capture'). The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('captured network request logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_console_logs' or 'start_network_capture', which would require more specificity for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_console_logs' or 'intercept_network'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether network capture must be active) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, or what format the extracted text returns. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with page content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward extraction tool and gets directly to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'text content' means (plain text vs HTML, formatting preservation), doesn't mention performance considerations or limitations, and provides no context about the extraction process or result format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not exceptional parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Extract text content') and target resource ('from the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'take_snapshot' or 'evaluate_mainworld' that might also retrieve page content in different forms, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other content extraction methods available in the sibling tool list, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether it returns real-time status, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output format might be, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with recording state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with recording status (likely involving state checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recording status' entails (e.g., active/inactive, duration, errors) or what the return values are, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'pageId' documented as 'Page ID (uses active page if not specified)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get current recording status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current recording status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_recording' or 'stop_recording' beyond the obvious action difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be called before or after recording operations, or if it's needed for monitoring ongoing recordings. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'hover' entails (e.g., mouse simulation, visual feedback, side effects), whether it requires specific page states, or what happens on failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a UI interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or expected outcomes, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively in a testing or automation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'UID' context or 'pageId' defaults. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('hover over') and target ('an element by its UID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar UI interaction tools like 'click' or 'drag' among its siblings, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'click' or 'wait_for', nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing a snapshot or active page. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'intercept and block/modify' but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., impact on page performance), error handling, or what happens after interception. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Intercept and block/modify network requests') without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutating network requests with nested parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, prerequisites, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these parameters for interception, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('intercept') and resource ('network requests'), and specifies the actions ('block/modify'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_intercept' or network capture tools, but the action-oriented focus is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_intercept', 'start_network_capture', or other network-related siblings. The description states what it does but offers no context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions navigation actions but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether navigation blocks execution, what happens on timeout/failure, if it changes page context, or authentication requirements. For a navigation tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that captures the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('Navigate to a URL') followed by secondary options. Every word earns its place in this efficient formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a navigation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes successful navigation, error conditions, return values, or how this integrates with the broader page management context (siblings include many page-related tools). The agent lacks critical context about this tool's behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing solid baseline documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'type' parameter's purpose (navigation actions) but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., that 'url' is only needed for type='url') or provide usage examples. The schema already documents each parameter well, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (navigate, go back/forward/reload) and the resource (URL/page). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'new_page' or 'select_page' by focusing on navigation actions rather than page creation or selection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention browser/page context which would make it fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an active page), when to choose 'reload' versus 'navigate to same URL', or how this differs from sibling tools like 'wait_for_navigation' or 'reload_settings'. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a page and optionally navigates, but doesn't mention important behaviors like whether this opens a new tab/window, what happens if the URL is invalid, if there are permission requirements, or what the return value might be. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., does it return a page identifier?), what errors might occur, or how this interacts with the browser context. Given the complexity of browser automation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the URL is optional and used 'after creating the page', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new browser page/tab'), and adds optional navigation functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'navigate_page' or 'list_pages', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'navigate_page' (for existing pages) or 'list_pages' (to see current pages). It mentions optional URL navigation but doesn't specify when this is appropriate versus using other navigation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('press') but doesn't describe what happens after pressing (e.g., does it trigger events, is it synchronous/asynchronous, are there side effects like navigation). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by 'press'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate usage effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('pageId' and 'key') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples beyond 'Enter' or 'Tab', or context for key combinations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('press') and resource ('keyboard key or combination'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'click' or 'fill', but the verb 'press' versus 'click' or 'fill' provides some implicit distinction for keyboard interactions versus mouse or form actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' for mouse actions or 'fill' for text input. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a mutation ('reload'), but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, affects system state, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely mutates settings (implied by 'reload'), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to address critical aspects like what gets reloaded, confirmation of changes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'configPath' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as default behavior when no path is provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reload') and the resource ('settings from config file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'init_user_config' or 'get_config_paths', which might involve similar configuration operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after config changes), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'init_user_config' or 'get_config_paths', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no intercepts exist, whether removal is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, nor does it explain return values or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('pageId' and 'urlPattern') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('network intercept rules'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'intercept_network' (which presumably creates intercepts) or 'clear_network_logs' (which clears logs rather than rules), missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether intercepts must exist first), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'intercept_network' or 'clear_network_logs', leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets a page as active, implying a state change, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this affects other pages, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., clearing logs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Set a page as the active page') and adds necessary context ('for subsequent operations'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'active' means, how it interacts with other tools (e.g., 'click' or 'take_screenshot'), and what happens if the pageId is invalid. For a state-changing tool, more context is needed to ensure proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'pageId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('page'), specifying it makes the page 'active for subsequent operations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pages' or 'close_page' by focusing on selection rather than listing or closing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'navigate_page' which might involve page activation, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing page), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'navigate_page' or 'new_page'. Without such context, users might struggle to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't mention whether this is a persistent operation, if it requires specific page states, what happens to existing console data, or how it interacts with 'stop_console_capture'. The description only states what it initiates, not how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that initiates a capture operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'capturing' entails operationally, how results are accessed (presumably via 'get_console_logs'), or the relationship with 'stop_console_capture'. Given the complexity of browser automation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start capturing') and resource ('browser console messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_network_capture' or 'stop_console_capture' beyond the obvious console vs. network distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_console_logs' or 'stop_console_capture', nor about prerequisites or typical workflows. The description is purely functional without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, how captures are stored, rate limits, or interaction with other tools like 'get_network_logs', leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (starting capture) with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that interact with network data, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'capturing' entails, how to access results, or coordination with tools like 'get_network_logs' or 'stop_network_capture', leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying network request capture, which the schema already covers with its property descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start capturing') and resource ('network requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_console_capture' or 'intercept_network' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'intercept_network' or 'stop_network_capture'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Start recording') but lacks details on permissions needed, whether recording is continuous or triggered, how to stop it (though 'stop_recording' is a sibling), error conditions, or what happens if already recording. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and details the types of interactions recorded. There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like how recording works, what data is captured, or how to handle the recording state, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with siblings like 'stop_recording'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pageId' parameter documented as optional and defaulting to the active page. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start recording') and the target ('user interactions'), specifying the types of interactions (clicks, scrolls, inputs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_recording' by indicating the initiation of recording, but does not explicitly differentiate from other recording-related tools like 'start_console_capture' or 'start_network_capture' beyond the scope of interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for initiating interaction recording, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a page must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'stop_recording' or other capture tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool stops recording and returns captured actions, but lacks critical behavioral details: what 'captured actions' includes (e.g., clicks, inputs), whether recording is automatically saved or discarded, if this requires specific permissions, or error handling for inactive recording. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (implied by 'stop' action) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'captured actions' entails, how they're returned, or prerequisites like needing an active recording. For a tool that likely changes state and returns data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the optional 'pageId' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or detracting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop recording') and outcome ('return captured actions'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_console_capture' or 'stop_network_capture', which are also stop operations for different recording types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that recording must be active via 'start_recording'), nor does it clarify relationships with sibling tools like 'stop_console_capture' or 'stop_network_capture'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'take a screenshot' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, whether it captures the current viewport or can capture scrolled content, or any rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image data, file path, etc.), doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like whether it waits for page load, and provides minimal parameter guidance beyond the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'page or a specific element' which hints at the pageId and uid parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already documents for the 5 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('take a screenshot') and target ('page or a specific element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'take_snapshot' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites might be needed. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'interactive element UIDs for targeting', which hints at behavioral output, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, affects page state, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the snapshot returns (e.g., format, structure), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a tool that likely produces structured data, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'verbose' affects 'accessibility properties' in detail). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('take a text snapshot') and the resource ('page'), specifying it includes 'interactive element UIDs for targeting'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' (visual) and 'get_page_text' (text without UIDs), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_text' or 'take_screenshot'. The description implies it's for capturing text with UIDs, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'wait for' implies a blocking operation, it doesn't describe what happens on timeout, whether it polls continuously, what the return value indicates, or any performance implications. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for proper tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality, making it immediately comprehensible without any unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'appear on the page', what happens when the condition isn't met, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The lack of behavioral context makes this incomplete for proper agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, providing a solid baseline. The description mentions 'text or selector' which aligns with two parameters, but doesn't explain the relationship between them (mutually exclusive? both required?). It doesn't mention the 'state' parameter's significance or the 'timeout' default behavior, leaving gaps despite good schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('wait for') and target ('text or selector to appear on the page'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'wait_for_navigation', but the focus on page elements rather than navigation events provides implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'wait_for_navigation' for navigation-based waiting or clarify whether this is for dynamic content loading versus static element detection. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Wait for page navigation to complete' implies this is a blocking operation that may timeout, but it doesn't specify what happens on success/failure, whether it returns any data, or what the default timeout is. The description mentions the core behavior but lacks important operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a waiting tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a navigation waiting tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'navigation completion', what happens on timeout, whether it returns success/failure status, or how it interacts with the sibling 'wait_for' tool. The single sentence leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With 75% schema description coverage (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap (pageId has no schema description), nor does it provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('wait for page navigation to complete'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'wait_for' tool, which appears to be a more general waiting mechanism. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus the general 'wait_for' sibling, nor any context about prerequisites like requiring an active navigation to be in progress. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Clear' implies a destructive action, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the logs (permanent deletion vs temporary clearing). It also doesn't mention any side effects or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'captured' means (implying prior capture setup), what happens after clearing, whether there's confirmation or feedback, or how this interacts with the console logging system. Given the complexity of a mutation tool in a browser automation context, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema already documents that 'pageId' is optional and defaults to the active page. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than repeating parameter information, which is efficient given the comprehensive schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear captured console logs' clearly states the verb ('Clear') and resource ('captured console logs'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'clear_network_logs' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to have console capture started first (via 'start_console_capture'), nor does it clarify the relationship with 'get_console_logs' for viewing logs before clearing. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this returns live page objects, URLs, titles, or metadata; whether it includes hidden or background tabs; or if there are any limitations like pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with potential behavioral nuances) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'list' entails—format, scope, or return values—leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no additional explanation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all open browser pages/tabs', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'select_page' or 'get_page_text' that might also involve page enumeration, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'select_page' (likely for choosing a specific page) and 'get_page_text' (for content extraction), there's no indication of when listing pages is preferred over other page-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'stop' implies a state change, it doesn't specify what happens after stopping (e.g., whether previously captured logs remain accessible via 'get_console_logs'), whether this requires specific permissions, or what the typical response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'stop capturing' entails operationally, what state changes occur, or how this interacts with related tools like 'get_console_logs' and 'start_console_capture'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention any parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'pageId' is fully documented in the schema) and only one optional parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description doesn't contradict or add confusion, warranting a slightly higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop capturing') and the target ('console messages'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'stop_network_capture' or 'stop_recording', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to have started console capture first), nor does it reference the sibling 'start_console_capture' tool that logically precedes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, such as whether it returns paths as strings or objects, if it includes error handling for missing files, or if it has any side effects like caching. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It uses clear terms like 'Get all config file paths' and lists the specific types without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of paths) and behavioral aspects, which are important for a tool that retrieves data. With no annotations to supplement, the description is minimal but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from more context on output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all config file paths', specifying three types: user config, package default, and active. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_console_logs or get_network_logs by focusing on config files rather than logs or other data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like init_user_config or reload_settings, which might involve configs but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether config files must exist or be initialized, or suggest alternatives like init_user_config for setup or reload_settings for updates. Without this context, users might struggle to determine the appropriate tool for their needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Stop capturing' implies a state change operation, but it doesn't describe what happens after stopping (e.g., whether captured data persists, whether it's automatically saved or cleared, or what permissions are required). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It tells what the tool does at a high level but lacks important context about what happens after stopping capture, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with related tools. Given the complexity of network capture operations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the schema already fully documents the 'pageId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and simple parameter structure. The baseline for this scenario is appropriately high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop capturing network requests' clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('capturing network requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'stop_console_capture' which has a similar structure but different target, nor does it specify what happens to the captured data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that network capture must be started first), nor does it clarify when to use this versus 'clear_network_logs' or 'remove_intercept' which are related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the action (dismissing popups), it lacks details about how dismissal works (e.g., clicking buttons, waiting for elements), what happens on failure, or side effects. The description doesn't compensate for the missing annotation coverage adequately for a tool that modifies page state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Dismiss cookie consent popups and overlays') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details needed for a tool that interacts with dynamic page elements, especially without annotations to fill gaps in safety or operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (like 'Page ID' or 'Maximum attempts'), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('dismiss') and target resources ('cookie consent popups and overlays'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like click or hover that perform different browser interactions. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when cookie popups appear), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like click (which might handle similar UI elements) or when not to use it. No specific exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal application scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (creating/configuring a directory) but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is idempotent, what happens if directory already exists, permission requirements, or what 'default settings' includes. The description is functional but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, providing complete information about what the tool does without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks details about what 'default settings' means, what gets created, or what success/failure looks like. For a configuration initialization tool, more operational context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Initialize') and target resource ('user config directory (~/.config/camoufox-mcp) with default settings'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are browser automation/testing commands. It provides exact verb+resource+scope information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (initial setup of configuration directory) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It's clear this is for initialization, but no explicit guidance about timing or conditions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the isolated/sandboxed context, access limitations (no window globals or page scripts, only DOM and standard APIs), and the ability to handle async operations. It doesn't mention error handling, execution timeouts, or security implications, but covers the core behavior well given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, limitations, examples), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with behavioral complexity, using bullet points and examples efficiently to convey information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing JavaScript in an isolated context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, limitations, and examples. It doesn't detail the return format or error behavior, but the examples hint at results. For a tool without structured output documentation, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('pageId' and 'script'). The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides for these parameters, though it implies through examples that 'script' can include async/await and returns expression results. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Execute JavaScript') and resource ('in an ISOLATED context'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'evaluate_mainworld' by emphasizing the isolated, sandboxed nature. It explicitly mentions what it does (execute JS in isolation) and what it doesn't do (access window globals or page scripts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance with a 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN YOU NEED TO' section listing four specific scenarios (async operations, DOM query/manipulation without affecting page state, non-interfering code, async data extraction/waiting). It also includes a 'LIMITATIONS' section detailing when NOT to use it (e.g., cannot access window globals or page scripts), offering clear alternatives implicitly by contrast with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 excels by detailing critical limitations: 'NO async/await support', 'NO Promise, fetch(), setTimeout callbacks', and 'Script will be REJECTED if it contains async patterns.' These are crucial behavioral traits not inferable from the input schema alone. The description also explains the execution context and return behavior ('Returns the expression result'), providing complete transparency for a tool with significant constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, critical limitations, and examples. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable guidance. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (JavaScript execution with strict limitations) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral constraints, parameter guidance, and examples. The description fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata, ensuring an AI agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it emphasizes that the script must be 'SYNCHRONOUS' (reinforcing limitations), provides concrete examples of valid scripts, and clarifies that results are returned from expressions. However, it doesn't elaborate on the pageId parameter's behavior beyond what the schema states ('uses active page if not specified'), keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute JavaScript in the page's MAIN execution context (same as browser DevTools console).' It specifies the exact action (execute JavaScript) and resource (main execution context), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_isolated by emphasizing the 'MAIN' context. The description provides specific examples of what can be accessed, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN YOU NEED TO:' section with four bullet points detailing specific scenarios (accessing window globals, reading framework state, accessing page scripts, interacting with third-party libraries). It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like evaluate_isolated by emphasizing the 'MAIN' context. The guidelines are comprehensive and directly actionable for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![camoufox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baixianger/camoufox-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baixianger/camoufox-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![camoufox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baixianger/camoufox-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baixianger/camoufox-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/baixianger/camoufox-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server