browser_get_page_structureGet a readable page structure summary to analyze the DOM layout. Scope to a specific element and set max depth or children to control detail.
Return a readable page structure summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxDepth | No | Max tree depth (default 4). | |
| selector | No | Scope to an element; omit for document body. | |
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| maxChildren | No | Max children per node (default 20). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'readable page structure summary' without explaining side effects, read-only nature, or interaction with the browser session. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is severely lacking in behavioral context.
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, punchy sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for its simplicity, though it lacks any structured elaboration that could make it more useful (e.g., examples or clarifications).
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits crucial context like the requirement of an active session (implied by sessionId), what the output format looks like, and how the structure is generated. An agent would have to infer too much to use this tool correctly.
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 75%, so most parameters (maxDepth, selector, maxChildren) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage, and the description adds no extra value.
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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('page structure summary'), making the tool's core function clear. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from generic actions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like browser_snapshot or browser_dom_query.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_snapshot or browser_dom_query. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., active session or loaded page) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.