mcp-playwright

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear separation between navigation, interaction, HTTP requests, and code generation functions. However, some overlap exists between playwright_click and playwright_iframe_click, and between playwright_fill and playwright_iframe_fill, which could cause minor confusion about when to use the iframe variants versus regular versions.
Naming Consistency5/5
Excellent naming consistency throughout. All tools follow a clear snake_case pattern with 'playwright_' prefix for browser operations and descriptive verb_noun combinations. The three codegen tools also follow a consistent pattern with 'codegen_session' suffix.
Tool Count3/5
32 tools is quite large for an MCP server, bordering on heavy. While Playwright is a comprehensive browser automation library, this many tools may overwhelm agents and could potentially be consolidated (e.g., HTTP methods could be a single tool with method parameter).
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage of Playwright's core functionality including navigation, element interaction, iframe handling, HTTP requests, debugging (console logs), file operations, PDF/screenshot generation, and code generation. No obvious gaps exist for typical browser automation workflows.
Average 3/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 13 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what information is returned (status, code, metadata), whether there are authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about sessions, what format the response takes, or what constitutes a valid session. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about code generation sessions, the description should provide more context about the return values and session lifecycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'sessionId'. The tool description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a code generation session' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('code generation session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'start_codegen_session' or 'end_codegen_session' - it's unclear if this retrieves active sessions, completed sessions, or all sessions. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a session ID from 'start_codegen_session'), no indication of when this should be used instead of other session-related tools, and no context about what constitutes a valid session. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'click' entails (e.g., simulates user click, may trigger navigation or JavaScript events), error conditions (e.g., if selector not found), side effects, or performance considerations. The description is minimal and misses key operational context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Click an element on the page' directly conveys the core action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with potential side effects), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it's incomplete. The description doesn't cover what happens after clicking (e.g., page changes, return values), error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema as 'CSS selector for the element to click'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as selector syntax examples or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Click an element on the page' clearly states the action (click) and target (element on page), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'playwright_click_and_switch_tab' or 'playwright_iframe_click'. It specifies 'on the page' but not whether this refers to the main page or includes iframes, leaving ambiguity compared to specialized sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a page to be loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for iframes), or comparisons to siblings like 'playwright_click_and_switch_tab' for tab interactions or 'playwright_iframe_click' for iframe elements. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon deletion (e.g., resource removal, side effects). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'url' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform an HTTP DELETE request' clearly states the action (DELETE) and resource type (HTTP request), but it's generic and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like playwright_patch, playwright_post, and playwright_put, which are also HTTP methods. It lacks specificity about what gets deleted or the context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention scenarios for DELETE requests, prerequisites, or comparisons to other HTTP methods in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage based on general HTTP knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('Perform an HTTP GET request') without revealing any behavioral traits such as error handling, timeout behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with redirects. This is inadequate for a tool that performs network operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Perform an HTTP GET request'), which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is an HTTP request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (HTML content, response headers, status codes), error conditions, or how it integrates with the Playwright context. The description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'url' clearly documented as 'URL to perform GET operation'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform an HTTP GET request') and specifies the resource type (HTTP request). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling HTTP methods like playwright_post, playwright_put, playwright_patch, or playwright_delete, which all perform HTTP requests but with different methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for HTTP GET requests specifically, nor does it differentiate from other HTTP methods in the sibling tools list or from other navigation tools like playwright_navigate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it performs an HTTP PATCH request, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what the response includes. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Perform an HTTP PATCH request', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error cases, and integration with the Playwright ecosystem, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url and value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform an HTTP PATCH request' states the action (perform) and resource (HTTP PATCH request), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what the PATCH request targets (e.g., web pages, APIs) or how it relates to the Playwright context implied by sibling tools, making it less specific than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playwright_put or playwright_post, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., requiring an active session). Without such information, usage is ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that clearing occurs 'without generating a test', which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose critical details such as whether this is a destructive operation, what happens to session data, if it's reversible, or any permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note ('without generating a test'). It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, side effects), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sessionId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and the resource ('a code generation session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'end_codegen_session', which might serve a similar function, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by noting 'without generating a test', which hints at a specific use case but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'end_codegen_session' or other session management tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ending a session and generating a test file, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this action is destructive (e.g., deletes session data), requires specific permissions, has side effects like file creation, or what happens if the session ID is invalid. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's likely complexity (ending a session and generating files), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the result format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a code generation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sessionId' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format or source of the ID), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('End') and resource ('a code generation session'), and it adds the outcome ('and generate the test file'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'clear_codegen_session', which might have overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'clear_codegen_session' or 'get_codegen_session'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieve' and 'filtering options', but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific browser states, potential side effects (e.g., clearing logs as per the 'clear' parameter), or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('retrieve console logs') and mentions key capabilities ('filtering options') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by being direct and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of browser interaction tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., log format, structure), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (like requiring a started session). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, more contextual detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'filtering options', but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or provide additional context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'console logs from the browser', making the purpose evident. It also mentions 'filtering options' which hints at capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve logs or handle browser interactions, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active browser session), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_text' or 'playwright_evaluate' that might overlap in debugging contexts. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about optimal usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a configuration change, it doesn't describe whether this persists across browser sessions, affects all subsequent requests, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on other browser settings. For a tool that modifies browser behavior with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies browser configuration with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the User Agent, whether the change is immediate or requires a page reload, what format the User Agent should follow, or potential limitations. For a configuration tool in a complex browser automation context, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'userAgent' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying this sets the User Agent string. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('custom User Agent for the browser'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on User Agent configuration rather than navigation, interaction, or session management. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other User Agent-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active browser session), when it's appropriate (e.g., for testing different browser versions or bypassing detection), or what happens if used incorrectly. With many sibling tools for browser interaction, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about proper application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('drag') but doesn't describe what happens during or after the drag (e.g., whether it simulates mouse events, waits for animations, or handles errors). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context like side effects or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('drag an element to a target location') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the drag entails, potential errors, or return values. For a tool that likely involves UI interaction and state changes, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (sourceSelector and targetSelector as CSS selectors). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how selectors are resolved or what constitutes a valid target. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('drag') and the resource ('an element to a target location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_hover by specifying the drag interaction, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like playwright_upload_file which might involve dragging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for non-draggable elements), or sibling tools for related actions like playwright_click for simpler interactions. Usage is implied by the action name but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe execution context (e.g., page state, timing), error handling, security implications, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary JavaScript in a browser environment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and straightforward purpose, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing JavaScript in a browser (with no annotations or output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the execution context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single 'script' parameter. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents the parameter, but the description doesn't provide additional context about script requirements or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute JavaScript in the browser console' clearly states the action (execute) and target (JavaScript in browser console), distinguishing it from other Playwright tools that perform UI interactions or navigation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential JavaScript execution alternatives in the sibling list, though the 'browser console' context helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other Playwright tools for DOM manipulation or API calls. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it waits for the selector to be visible, handles errors if the selector isn't found, or interacts with the page state. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct phrase ('fill out an input field') that is highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of browser automation (implied by sibling tools) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral nuances, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for effective tool use in this context. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('selector' as CSS selector and 'value' as value to fill). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'fill out an input field' clearly states the action (fill out) and target (input field), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'playwright_iframe_fill', which likely serves a similar purpose for iframes, missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_iframe_fill' or other input-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring a page to be loaded, or exclusions, making it minimally helpful for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. It mentions that script tags are removed by default, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this tool requires a page to be loaded, if it's read-only or has side effects, potential performance impacts, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly address the tool's core functionality and a key parameter behavior. Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'visible HTML' means in practice (e.g., rendered DOM vs. source), how it interacts with dynamic content, or what the return format looks like. For a tool that likely returns substantial HTML data, more context about output structure or limitations would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies the default behavior for 'removeScripts' (true unless explicitly set to false), which isn't fully captured in the schema's description. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaningful context for other parameters like 'cleanHtml' or 'selector', so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the HTML content of the current page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML content'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_text' or 'playwright_screenshot', which also retrieve page content in different formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a default behavior for script removal but doesn't compare it to other tools like 'playwright_get_visible_text' for text-only extraction or 'playwright_screenshot' for visual capture. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'hover' entails (e.g., mouse simulation, potential side effects like triggering CSS events), error handling, or performance implications, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste—'Hover an element on the page' is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but action-oriented tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what hovering does (e.g., UI interactions), success/failure states, or integration with other Playwright tools, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the selector parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the selector targets 'an element on the page', which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hover an element on the page' clearly states the action (hover) and target (an element), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling Playwright tools (like click, drag, etc.) beyond the specific action name, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playwright_click or playwright_drag, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a page to be loaded). It's a standalone statement with no context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('click') but doesn't disclose whether this might trigger page navigation, open new tabs, require element visibility, have timing delays, or handle errors. For a UI automation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of UI automation (interacting with iframes, potential side effects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after the click (e.g., page changes, return values, error conditions), nor does it provide behavioral context needed for safe and effective use in an automated testing scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema ('iframeSelector' and 'selector'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these selectors target iframes and elements within them, which is already evident from parameter names and schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('click') and target ('an element in an iframe on the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_click' (which clicks elements without iframe context) or 'playwright_iframe_fill' (which fills iframe elements), missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'playwright_click' (for non-iframe elements) or 'playwright_iframe_fill' (for filling instead of clicking), nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring an iframe context or page navigation first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('fill') but doesn't explain what 'fill' entails (e.g., typing text, clearing existing content, triggering events), potential side effects (e.g., page reloads, validation), error conditions, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and context efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., how filling works, error handling), usage context (e.g., when to apply), and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (iframeSelector, selector, value). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema is comprehensive, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fill') and target ('an element in an iframe on the page'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'playwright_fill' by specifying the iframe context, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other iframe-related tools like 'playwright_iframe_click'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'playwright_fill' (for non-iframe elements) or 'playwright_iframe_click' (for clicking instead of filling), nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring the iframe to be accessible or the page to be loaded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Navigate to a URL' implies opening a browser and loading a page, but doesn't describe what happens (creates new browser instance? uses existing? what's returned?), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple navigation function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to other playwright tools. The agent would need to guess about the behavioral context and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the action (navigate) and target (URL), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other navigation-related siblings like 'playwright_get' or 'playwright_go_back/forward', which would require more specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple playwright navigation tools available (get, go_back, go_forward), there's no indication of when this specific navigate function is preferred or what distinguishes it from other navigation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Perform an HTTP POST request' indicates a write operation but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements (though hinted in schema), rate limits, error handling, or what the response might contain. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Perform an HTTP POST request' is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (POST implies writing) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (url, value, headers, token) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform an HTTP POST request' clearly states the verb ('perform') and resource ('HTTP POST request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like playwright_patch, playwright_put, or playwright_delete, which are also HTTP methods, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple HTTP method tools in the sibling list (POST, PATCH, PUT, DELETE, GET), there's no indication of when POST is appropriate versus other methods, nor any context about prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Press a keyboard key' implies a simulated user action but doesn't specify whether this requires a focused element, what happens if the selector is invalid, or any side effects like page navigation. For a tool with potential interaction consequences, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Press a keyboard key'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that simulates keyboard input. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like key combinations or focus requirements. For a user interaction tool in a complex environment like Playwright, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (key and selector). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of key sequences or selector usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Press a keyboard key' clearly states the action (press) and resource (keyboard key), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_fill, which also involve user interactions but with different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for user interactions (e.g., playwright_click, playwright_fill, playwright_select), there's no indication of when keyboard pressing is preferred over clicking or other methods, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (HTTP PUT) without explaining what this entails—such as whether it's idempotent, requires authentication, handles errors, or modifies server state. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Perform an HTTP PUT request' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (PUT implies write operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like idempotency, error handling, or response format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly in a Playwright context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('url' and 'value') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform an HTTP PUT request' clearly states the verb (PUT) and resource (HTTP request), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'playwright_patch' or 'playwright_post', which are also HTTP methods, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_patch' or 'playwright_post'. It doesn't mention typical use cases for PUT requests (e.g., updating resources) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the HTTP method alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention that this likely requires an active browser context, may overwrite existing files, involve file system permissions, or describe output behavior (e.g., file path return).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'current page' means contextually, how the PDF is generated, error conditions, or what happens after saving (e.g., confirmation). More context is needed given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying PDF generation, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and resource ('current page as a PDF file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_screenshot' that also capture page content, missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'playwright_screenshot' for image capture or other PDF-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The description doesn't mention that this likely requires an active Playwright browser session, what happens with the screenshot data (saved vs returned), or error conditions. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (base64 string? file path? success status?), doesn't mention dependencies on browser state, and provides no behavioral context. For a screenshot tool with multiple configuration options, more guidance is needed about typical workflows and output handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'current page or a specific element,' which hints at the 'selector' parameter's purpose. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all 8 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured fields, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Take') and resource ('screenshot of the current page or a specific element'). It distinguishes between page-level and element-level screenshots, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_save_as_pdf, which serves a similar visual capture function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose playwright_screenshot over playwright_save_as_pdf, nor does it provide context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session) or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation action ('Select') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, whether it waits for the element, or what happens if the selector is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, and return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in a web automation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (selector and value). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the element must be a 'Select tag', which provides some context but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Select') and target ('element on the page with Select tag'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like playwright_click or playwright_fill by specifying it's for Select elements, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring a page to be loaded, nor does it differentiate from other playwright tools that might interact with elements, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. It mentions uploading a file but fails to describe key behaviors: whether it waits for the upload to complete, handles errors (e.g., invalid file paths or selectors), or affects page state. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a clear functional role.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, success criteria, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (filePath and selector). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., file size limits or selector specificity). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload a file') and target ('to an input[type='file'] element on the page'), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_fill or playwright_select, but the focus on file uploads makes it reasonably distinct within the Playwright toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playwright_fill (which might handle text inputs) or other file-handling methods. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the element to be visible or interactable, or when not to use it (e.g., for non-file inputs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. It mentions 'record Playwright actions' but fails to detail what starting a session entails, such as session persistence, permissions needed, or effects on system state. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a session (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'options' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'start' and resource 'code generation session', specifying its purpose to 'record Playwright actions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'end_codegen_session' and 'get_codegen_session' by indicating initiation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'clear_codegen_session' or 'end_codegen_session', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for starting a session. The description lacks explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'visible text content' but doesn't clarify what 'visible' means (e.g., viewport-only vs. entire page), whether it excludes hidden elements, or how it handles dynamic content. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a browser environment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a browser automation tool. It doesn't explain what 'visible text' entails, how the result is structured, or potential edge cases (e.g., pagination, formatting). For a tool in a complex domain like Playwright, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function without unnecessary parameter details, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('visible text content of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_get_visible_html', but the distinction is implied through the specific resource mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'playwright_get_visible_html' or other text-extraction methods. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Navigate back in browser history' implies a read-only navigation action, it doesn't specify whether this requires an active browser context, what happens if there's no history to go back to (e.g., error behavior), or if it affects page state. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with browser state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, new page URL), error conditions, or dependencies like requiring an active Playwright session. For a tool that likely changes browser state, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. This meets the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigate back in browser history' clearly states the action (navigate back) and the resource (browser history), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'playwright_go_forward', which would be the natural alternative for forward navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_go_forward' or 'playwright_navigate', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active browser session or being on a page with history. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions navigation but doesn't specify what happens if there's no forward history, error conditions, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with browser state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens after navigation (success/failure indicators, page state changes). As a browser interaction tool with potential side effects, the current description is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Navigate forward') and target ('in browser history'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'playwright_go_back' beyond the directional implication, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'playwright_navigate' or 'playwright_go_back'. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting and validation, but lacks details on timeout behavior, error handling, or what happens if validation fails. This is inadequate for a tool that performs assertions with potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what validation entails, error responses) and output expectations. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps in understanding its full operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'value' or validation specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for and validate a previously initiated HTTP response wait operation.' It specifies the verb ('wait for and validate') and resource ('HTTP response'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playwright_expect_response' beyond implying a sequence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by referencing 'previously initiated' with 'playwright_expect_response', suggesting this tool follows that one. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool 'initiates the wait operation but does not wait for its completion,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects such as timeout behavior, error handling, concurrency implications, or what happens if multiple responses match the URL pattern, leaving gaps for a tool that manages asynchronous operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follow with critical behavioral information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an asynchronous wait tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or return values, which are important for such operations. The schema handles parameters well, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and url) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, but doesn't need to compensate for low coverage. With 2 parameters and high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Ask Playwright to start waiting for a HTTP response') and resource ('HTTP response'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like playwright_assert_response which retrieves the response. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope or how it differs from other waiting/response tools beyond the named sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning that the response can be retrieved later with playwright_assert_response, providing some context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like direct response handling or other playwright tools, and doesn't state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action and outcome but lacks critical behavioral details, such as whether it waits for the new tab to load, handles pop-ups, requires specific page states, or what happens if no new tab opens. For a tool with potential side effects (tab switching), this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. Every part ('Click a link', 'switch to the newly opened tab') earns its place by directly informing the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs a potentially complex action (clicking and tab switching), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing page context), leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a CSS selector. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on selector types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Click a link and switch to the newly opened tab'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'playwright_click' (which only clicks) and 'playwright_get' (which navigates). It explicitly mentions the resource (a link) and the outcome (switching to a new tab), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying it's for clicking links that open new tabs, which differentiates it from tools for other interactions (e.g., 'playwright_fill' for forms). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using 'playwright_click' if no tab switch is needed, leaving some guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does 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. It mentions releasing resources, which adds useful context beyond the basic 'close' action, but does not detail side effects like terminating all open pages or whether the browser can be reopened. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks depth on operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the main action. Every part of the sentence ('Close the browser and release all resources') contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding but could benefit from more context, such as typical usage patterns or effects on sibling tools. It covers the core action but leaves gaps in practical guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, making it efficient and focused on the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Close') and target resource ('the browser'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like playwright_screenshot or playwright_get that perform different operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be called at the end of a session or in specific cleanup scenarios. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-playwright MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/executeautomation/mcp-playwright/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/executeautomation/mcp-playwright)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-playwright MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/executeautomation/mcp-playwright/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/executeautomation/mcp-playwright)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/executeautomation/mcp-playwright'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server