browser-firefox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

enumerate_links

List every hyperlink on the current page, with an option to show only relative links, aiding penetration testers in reconnaissance and link enumeration.

Instructions

List all hyperlinks on the page.

Tool call template

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": "enumerate_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`relative_only`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('list all hyperlinks') without revealing whether it mutates state, requires authentication, is affected by page readiness, or has any side effects. It also doesn't describe the output format or whether it includes duplicates or fragments.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the core action without any fluff. It is perfectly front-loaded and easily parsed, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter's effect and the shape of returned data to compensate. It does neither. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse the missing details, especially since the schema coverage is 0% and no alternative source of information exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter `relative_only` (default true) has 0% schema description coverage)Skiping, and the description does not mention it at all. The description adds no value beyond the schema's existence; the parameter's meaning and effect on results are unexplained, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists all hyperlinks on the page, specifying the resource (hyperlinks) and the scope (page). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enumerate_forms by focusing on links. However, it could be more precise about what qualifies as a hyperlink (e.g., only `<a>` tags or also href-bearing elements).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_page, get_text, or other navigation tools). The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when it might be preferable to a different tool, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.