frame_listList iframes in a tab's top-level DOM with visibility status. Use returned frame_index/iframe_id to target specific frames in subsequent operations.
列出标签页顶级 DOM 中的所有 iframe 及其可见状态（可见即激活态功能模块）。
返回的 frame_index / iframe_id 可作为其他工具 frame 参数的取值。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No | ||
| browser_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses the scope (top-level DOM) and the nature of the output (iframes with visibility status, where visible means active functional module). It aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. Minor ambiguities like the exact definition of 'visible' are present but not misleading.
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 concise and to the point, covering all necessary information in two sentences without any redundant or verbose language. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and the relevance of its output.
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 provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role, including the output's relationship to other tools. While it does not explicitly discuss error handling or edge cases, the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make the description adequate for correct usage.
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 two parameters (tab_id and browser_id) have no descriptions in the schema or in the tool description. They appear to be optional identifiers, but their exact meaning and expected values are left unexplained. With 0% schema coverage and no textual explanation, the agent has to infer their purpose, which is insufficient for effective invocation.
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: listing all iframes in the tab's top-level DOM along with their visibility status. It also explains that the returned frame_index/iframe_id can be used as the frame parameter for other tools, making its role unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that operate on elements or navigation.
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?
The description implicitly guides usage by stating that the returned frame identifiers can be used as the frame parameter for other tools, which is a clear practical use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for its use, though this is not critical given its unique function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.