Retrieve learned knowledge, known quirks, and saved recipes for a website domain or active browser tab to reuse site-specific context during automation.
Retrieves all learned knowledge, known quirks, and saved recipes for a specific domain or the active tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | No | Optional tab ID to extract domain from active tab. | |
| domain | No | Website domain or URL to inspect memory for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: "Retrieves" establishes this is a non-mutating read, and it names the categories of content returned. It does not disclose what happens when no memory exists for a domain, whether results are capped, or how the knowledge is structured, which matters because there is no output schema.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and selector choice but leaves the return shape and empty-state behavior unexplained. Adequate, but an agent cannot predict what it will receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the phrase "a specific domain or the active tab" adds the useful signal that the two parameters are alternative selectors rather than cumulative. Beyond that it adds no format or precedence detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Uses a specific verb ("Retrieves") and enumerates the resource concretely: learned knowledge, known quirks, and saved recipes for a domain. It is clearly distinct from write-side siblings like browser_learn_site_quirk and browser_save_recipe, but it never names or contrasts itself with browser_find_recipe, which is the closest read-side alternative.
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?
"for a specific domain or the active tab" implies the two ways to invoke it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus browser_find_recipe or when to prefer domain over tabId. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.