Extract a structural summary of the DOM tree to understand page layout and identify elements for security analysis.
Extract structural summary of the DOM tree.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "dom_analysis"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses only the basic action—no side-effect information, return characteristics, or edge-case behavior. While presumably non-destructive, the description could still note that it's a read-only operation or what environmental context affects results, leaving the agent to guess at the operational contract.
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 one-sentence description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the imperative verb 'Extract.' It wastes no words relative to the tool's zero-parameter complexity, though it sacrifices useful return-value detail for brevity.
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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves critical gaps—it doesn't define what a 'structural summary' contains, its return format, or when to prefer it over read_page or enumerate_*. Given the agent must rely entirely on this text to understand the tool's output, this lack of detail limits effective use.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to clarify parameter meaning since none exist, and the schema has full (vacuously so) coverage at 100%.
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 'Extract structural summary of the DOM tree' uses a clear, specific verb-resource pairing that immediately conveys the tool's function. It's concise and avoids tautology, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like read_page, get_text, or js_eval.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that structural inspection differs from content reading (get_text) or scripted evaluation (js_eval), nor does it provide preconditions or fallback recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.