Retrieve the current browser page title to confirm which page is open. To wait for a title change, use wait_for_page with titleContains.
Return the current page's title, the text shown in the browser tab. Use it to confirm which page is open; to wait until the title changes, use wait_for_page with titleContains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but this is a zero-parameter read-only getter, so the behavioral burden is inherently light. The description discloses what the value represents (the browser-tab title), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs; it says nothing about failure modes when no page is open, keeping it just short of a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the return semantics are front-loaded before the alternative-tool hint. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return value, and it does ('the current page's title / text shown in the browser tab'). It does not cover edge cases such as a title-less or not-yet-loaded page, so it is complete for normal use but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly omits any parameter discussion rather than inventing one.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return the current page's title') and immediately disambiguates it from page content and URLs by clarifying it is 'the text shown in the browser tab'. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_text and get_current_url without inspecting any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a concrete use case ('confirm which page is open') and explicitly names the alternative for the adjacent task: 'to wait until the title changes, use wait_for_page with titleContains.' That is a clear when-to-use plus a named sibling with the selecting condition, which is the strongest form of routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.