emulator_statusReports the local browser used for emulation, screenshot save location, and number of available screens so you can diagnose setup issues before blaming the page.
Dice que navegador local usa la emulacion, donde caen las capturas y cuantas pantallas hay disponibles. Usala para diagnosticar antes de culpar a la pagina.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content by enumerating the returned facts (browser, capture destination, screen count), which the annotations don't provide. It doesn't mention staleness of the data or any prerequisites, so it stays at a solid 3.
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 filler: the first lists what is reported, the second gives the usage cue. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the second sentence is a soft suggestion rather than something an agent can act on precisely.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of hinting at the response shape, which it does by naming the three returned facts. That's sufficient for an agent to call it and interpret the result, though richer detail on the returned structure would help.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 (reports) and three concrete outputs: which local browser drives the emulation, where screenshots are stored, and how many screens are available. It's clear what the tool returns, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like list_devices or list_responsive_sessions, which could also look status-related.
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?
"Usala para diagnosticar antes de culpar a la pagina" gives an implied usage context (troubleshooting before blaming the page), but it doesn't state when-not to use it or point to any alternative tool. The guidance is directionally useful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.