Skip to main content
Glama

browser_snapshot

Capture the visible title, URL, and interactive elements of a live page. Return unique selectors so clicks and text entry hit the intended target.

Instructions

Title, url, and the interactive elements that are actually visible.

Each element carries a selector when one can reach it: pass that string to browser_click or browser_type VERBATIM. It is built to match exactly one element, which the obvious selector often does not - measured across 958 elements on real pages, 88% could be addressed but only 48% unambiguously, and Playwright acts on the first match, so a caller aiming at the third of five identical links would silently hit the first.

Elements with no selector carry at, the centre coordinates, for browser_click_at.

Not the accessibility tree: on a real sign-up page a single country <select> contributes about two hundred <option> nodes, which fill the character cap before the form the caller was looking for appears at all.

browser is main unless you say support, and they share nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
browserNo
max_charsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.43.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: selectors are guaranteed unique-matched while raw selectors often aren't, elements without a selector expose centre coordinates, and the `browser` contexts 'share nothing'. It omits the read-only nature and any rate/limit caveats, but adds substantial context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph breaks separate distinct concerns. It is somewhat long and the 958-element / 88% vs 48% statistics are heavy editorializing, but each block still carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, yet the description usefully characterizes them anyway. For a 2-parameter read tool the coverage is good; only `max_chars` semantics and an explicit read-only statement are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It handles `browser` well ('main unless you say support, and they share nothing'), but only alludes to `max_chars` via 'the character cap' without explaining the parameter's unit, default, or truncation behavior.

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 first sentence names the resource precisely: title, url, and the visible interactive elements. It further differentiates by ruling out the accessibility tree, so an agent can tell it apart from browser_read_html/browser_read_text. No explicit verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It routes the caller downstream (pass `selector` to browser_click/browser_type, use `at` with browser_click_at) and excludes the accessibility tree, but never states when to prefer this over sibling readers like browser_read_text or browser_take_screenshot. Usage is implied rather than declared.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.