Reads the current Riverside page to return its text and numbered interactive elements, such as buttons, links, and fields, so an AI agent can inspect and navigate the signed-in account.
Read the current Riverside 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload shape (text plus numbered interactive elements), which is useful, but it says nothing about output size limits, whether reading has any side effects, or what happens if no page is open.
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. Slightly dense at the end, but every clause names a distinct part of the return value.
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-parameter, read-only observation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. The remaining gap is coordination context: which sibling consumes these numbered elements and the requirement that a page be open first.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional "element" parameter is documented in the schema as scoping the read to an element. The description adds nothing about the element parameter (e.g. whether it accepts the same numbered index reported for buttons/fields), so it does not exceed the schema 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 ("Read") and resource ("the current Riverside page") and enumerates what is captured: text, numbered buttons, links and fields. The mention of "numbered" elements hints at how the indices consumed by riverside_click/riverside_type are produced, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: reading the current page is naturally the observation step before acting. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus riverside_status or riverside_guide, and no note that this only applies to an already-open page (riverside_open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.