Retrieve cleaned page content, links, and controls with exact refs; use next_cursor to continue paged streams. Form field values are excluded.
Clean content, links and controls with exact refs; continue all streams using next_cursor. No field values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| tab_id | Yes | Exact stable tab_id; no implicit tab selection. | |
| timeout | No | Phase timeout in milliseconds (10000; download 120000). | |
| max_bytes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely useful trait, 'No field values' (i.e. form values are excluded from output), plus cursor continuation, but says nothing about read-only semantics, side effects, error behavior, or output shape. Two facts do not cover a full behavioral profile.
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?
It is short and front-loads the return contents before the pagination hint, with no filler sentences. However, the compressed semicolon phrasing is ambiguous rather than efficient, and brevity here comes at the cost of specification.
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 and no annotations, the description must explain what comes back; it only partially does so ('content, links and controls with exact refs', 'No field values') and omits pagination mechanics, cursor semantics, and the meaning of timeout/max_bytes. Inadequate for a 4-parameter browser tool.
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 only 50% (cursor and max_bytes are undocumented). Worse, the description refers to 'next_cursor' while the actual parameter is named 'cursor', which could mislead an agent, and it explains nothing about max_bytes or cursor format/size limits.
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 names the resources returned (content, links, controls) and the ref mechanism, so an agent can infer this reads page structure. But it opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like screenshot or act. Purpose is inferable but vague.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among list_tabs, goto, act, download, screenshot, or scroll. The only usage hint is 'continue all streams using next_cursor', which implies pagination continuation but leaves the primary selection condition unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.