Retrieve the raw HTML of a web page or a specific element using a CSS selector. Choose outerHTML to include the element's own tag for accurate scraping or debugging.
Get the HTML of the page or of an element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outer | No | Include the element's own tag (outerHTML) | |
| selector | No | CSS selector of the element (optional) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns HTML for either the full page or an individual element, and the optional selector is implied. However, it says nothing about return formatting, error behavior, or the distinction between outerHTML and innerHTML beyond what the schema already documents, so coverage is only partial.
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?
The entire description is a single nine-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds meaning.
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 simple read-only getter, the description plus the fully documented schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't explicitly state the behavior when no selector is provided, although 'page' implies it.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'outer' and 'selector' parameters, including defaults and semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('the HTML') and a scope ('the page or an element'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_get_text, browser_get_attribute, and browser_get_url, so an agent can select it without inspecting the schema.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_text or browser_evaluate. The description only states what it does; it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.