Captures console messages and a request summary from a browser page to help AI agents diagnose errors and inspect network activity without exposing headers, cookies, or bodies.
Console messages and a request summary. Never headers, cookies or bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is included and explicitly excluded (no headers, cookies, bodies), which is meaningful. However, it omits whether the tool requires an open page, whether it is read-only, and any other operational context.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The content is front-loaded with the positive scope, followed by the exclusions. Appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does provide the return contents and exclusions. However, it remains vague on what a 'request summary' includes and does not state the tool's dependency on an open page or session, leaving some context incomplete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 names the content (console messages and a request summary) but lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as snapshot or read_text. It is more specific than a tautology but still vague about what the tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only constraint given is what it never returns (headers, cookies, bodies), which is a scoping statement, not usage advice. An agent is left to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.