Capture the current browser viewport as a JPEG image for visual verification or documentation during automated tasks.
Capture the current viewport as a JPEG.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail (JPEG format, viewport scope) but does not reveal the output form, such as a file path or data URL, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.
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 sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. The action, scope, and format are front-loaded and immediately parseable.
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?
For a zero-parameter, annotation-rich, non-destructive tool, this description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the unspecified return format, but given the low complexity this is a minor omission.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add. The 'current viewport' phrase clarifies scope but does not affect parameter usage.
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?
States an unambiguous action ('Capture'), a clear resource ('the current viewport'), and a concrete output format ('JPEG'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_extract without extra context.
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 about when to use this tool versus browser_observe or browser_extract, nor any mention of when it should or should not be used. The description only states what it does and leaves selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.