Read the current AccuRanker page to capture its text plus numbered buttons, links, and fields, optionally limited to one element. Use it to inspect page content before choosing what to click or fill.
Read the current AccuRanker page: its text and numbered buttons, links and fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element | No | Read only inside this element. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description has to carry the safety profile, and it does signal read-only behavior through 'Read' and by describing returned content. It does not disclose whether element numbers are stable across reads, how long pages are truncated, or whether the read triggers any navigation.
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, and the return-content enumeration is placed where it is most useful.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is read and what the response contains. Truncation, pagination, and element-number stability are the remaining gaps an agent might need.
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 schema already explains that 'element' scopes the read to a single element. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the current AccuRanker page') and enumerates what comes back: text plus numbered buttons, links, and fields. The scope word 'current' implicitly separates it from accuranker_open, though no sibling is named outright.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The mention of 'numbered buttons, links and fields' implies the read-then-click/type workflow, so usage is inferable but never spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.