Retrieve console messages and uncaught page errors captured during the browser session, with optional error-only filtering.
Return the console messages (and uncaught page errors) captured since the session started; optionally filter to errors only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onlyErrors | No | When true, return only error-level messages. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 conveys a read-only operation ('Return'), defines the data source and scope ('captured since the session started'), and mentions the optional filtering behavior. It does not detail the exact return structure, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the main action, additional content, session scope, and the optional filter in a compact and readable way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema) and the description covers its purpose, scope, and main behavior. A brief note about the return format would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (onlyErrors) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description's phrase 'optionally filter to errors only' restates the schema semantics without adding new meaning, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('console messages') and additional scope ('captured since the session started'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like browser_network_requests. It also usefully includes 'uncaught page errors' as part of the result set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool — when console messages or uncaught page errors are needed — and specifies the session scope. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the resource and context are unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly without extra guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.