Capture a compact list of interactive elements on the current page so AI agents can inspect controls and decide what to click or type. Use the session ID and optional limit.
Return a compact snapshot of interactive elements on the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose that the snapshot is truncated/capped (the 'limit' default of 40), whether it is a safe read with no page mutation, or what 'compact' means in terms of completeness or ordering.
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. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a consequence of omitted detail rather than disciplined editing.
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 values need not be explained, but the description still leaves critical gaps: undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, no behavioral disclosure in the absence of annotations, and no routing against sibling page-inspection tools. For a tool in a crowded family, this is insufficient.
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 two parameters (session_id and limit) are undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'compact' hints that results are bounded, but the description never explains what 'limit' controls or that it defaults to 40, leaving the agent unable to tune the call.
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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('compact snapshot of interactive elements on the page'), so an agent knows this yields a listing of actionable page elements rather than raw HTML. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like browser_html, browser_query, or browser_take_screenshot, which also describe the same page.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as browser_html and browser_query in the same family, an agent is left to guess which extraction tool is appropriate in a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.