element_infoRetrieve complete information for a web element, including text, HTML, attributes, values, links, position, and status.
获取元素完整信息：文本、HTML、属性、值、链接、位置尺寸与状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| link | No | ||
| rect | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| attrs | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| xpath | No | ||
| states | No | ||
| element_id | Yes | ||
| inner_html | No | ||
| css_selector | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, and the description's 'get' wording reinforces this. The description does not go beyond the annotation, but it does clearly indicate the read-only nature without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that lists the types of information returned without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's function.
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?
The description enumerates the categories of data returned (text, HTML, attributes, value, link, position/size, state), which gives a good overview. However, it does not specify the output format or structure, though the existence of an output schema is indicated. For a simple read tool, this is nearly complete.
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 schema provides no description for element_id, and the tool description does not explain its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some extent, but the lack of additional context means the description does not compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve comprehensive element information including text, HTML, attributes, value, link, position/size, and state. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '元素' (element) precisely define the action, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools that perform actions like clicking or hovering.
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?
While the description implies that this tool is used to inspect element properties, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like find_element or get_page_info. No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.