Retrieve recorded trace events from a browser automation session to debug navigation, console, and network activity. Filter by session ID and paginate with limit and offset.
Read recorded session trace events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | 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. 'Read' implies a safe, non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, ordering of events, or whether a trace must already be running/stopped. With zero annotation coverage these gaps matter.
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 wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps captured elsewhere rather than being a virtue on its own.
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 described. However, for a 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no schema coverage, the description omits pagination semantics, trace lifecycle prerequisites, and usage context that an agent needs.
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 (session_id, limit, offset) and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain that limit/offset paginate results or what session_id must reference, leaving all three effectively 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 ('recorded session trace events'), which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like session_trace_start/stop. It does not explicitly differentiate from session_trace_export or session_trace_replay, which also surface trace data, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (export, replay, start/stop). The agent must infer from the name alone when this read is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.