Extract readable text from the current page or a CSS selector to read articles and results. Limit output size with a character cap for easier processing.
Texto legible de la página (o de un selector CSS), para leer artículos/resultados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | ||
| selector | No |
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 burden; it does disclose the return content (readable text) and implies a non-mutating read. However, it says nothing about truncation via maxChars, behavior when the selector matches nothing, whether it waits for page load, or how text is normalized — all relevant to a browser read.
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 clause with no filler; the core (readable text, optional selector) comes first. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but on the conciseness axis it wastes nothing.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation mean the description is the only source of truth, yet it omits truncation behavior, selector semantics, error/empty-case handling, and any routing versus 30+ sibling browser tools. Inadequate for an undocumented two-parameter browser tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at a CSS selector concept but never links it to the `selector` parameter or states default scope, and it never explains `maxChars` (presumably a truncation limit on returned text).
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 a specific resource and result: readable page text, optionally scoped to a CSS selector, aimed at reading articles or result sets. It is clear enough for an agent to recognize a text-extraction read, though it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbors such as browser_extract or browser_snapshot.
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?
"para leer artículos/resultados" implies the use case (reading content rather than interacting), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like browser_extract or browser_snapshot for structured or visual capture. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.