Skip to main content
Glama
beSaif

zenpilot

by beSaif
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_page

Outline of the page's visible interactive elements and text.

Instructions

Outline of the page's visible interactive elements and text.

Interactive elements get refs like r12 for click and type. Checkboxes, radios and
switches show checked or unchecked. "clickable" marks an element with a pointer
cursor but no role, often a custom toggle; its label is usually the text before it.
Refs expire when you call read_page again or the page navigates.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ref format, that refs expire on re-call or navigation, how checked states are rendered, and how role-less 'clickable' elements are labeled. It does not say whether the call itself navigates or mutates page state, which is the main remaining gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining lines each carry distinct information about refs and element states. The 'clickable' explanation is slightly discursive but still earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does: an outline of elements, ref tokens, and state markers. Missing details are the tab_id default behavior and whether text content is truncated or scoped to viewport.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single optional tab_id parameter is never explained in the description. An agent cannot tell from the text whether omitting tab_id targets the current tab or the active one, nor what format tab_id takes.

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 opens with a specific statement of the resource returned: an outline of visible interactive elements and text, with refs like r12. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It never contrasts itself with the close sibling get_text, so an agent must infer which of the two to call for plain text.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that elements 'get refs like r12 for click and type' hints that read_page is the prerequisite for click/type, but the description never says when to use it instead of get_text, screenshot, or scroll. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools