Read captured in-page console messages by session to inspect errors, warnings, and logs; optionally limit or clear them for debugging web automations.
Read captured in-page console messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether messages accumulate across navigation, what the default limit of 120 means for truncation, that the session must already be capturing, or that reading can have a side effect when clear is set — a meaningful omission for a tool adjacent to a destructive clear flag.
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 — the purpose is stated immediately. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately out of scope, but for a tool with an undocumented clear flag, a truncated-limit parameter, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent lacks what it needs to use the tool safely or predict its behavior.
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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The non-obvious semantics of clear (does it wipe the buffer after returning?) and limit (default 120 suggests truncation) are left entirely undocumented.
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 ("Read") and resource ("captured in-page console messages"), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent read tools like browser_network_requests or browser_snapshot, leaving sibling routing to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. whether capture must already be running in the session), and no mention of alternatives for inspecting page errors versus network or DOM data. The agent gets a resource description but no selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.