Extract visible text from a webpage element by providing its CSS selector. Use it to scrape content or validate page data.
Get the text content of an element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes | CSS selector of the element |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read operation, but it does not mention what happens when the selector matches no element, whether hidden elements are included, whether it waits for the element, or whether the text is trimmed. These are significant undocumented behaviors for a web automation tool.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.
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?
This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values. It is mostly complete for basic usage, though added context about selector behavior or alternative tools would make it stronger. It is not severely incomplete given the tool's low complexity.
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% for the single 'selector' parameter, which is already fully described as a CSS selector. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, semantics, or edge cases, 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('text content of an element'). It is distinguishable from siblings like browser_get_html and browser_get_attribute by specifying 'text content' rather than HTML or attributes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_html, browser_get_attribute, or browser_evaluate. The intended context is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.