Extract visible text from any element using its CSS selector to retrieve page content for analysis.
Extract visible text under the given CSS selector.
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": "get_text"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | No | body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what it does but not behavioral details like whether it waits for the element, errors if the selector is not found, or returns only the first match. The phrase 'visible text' hints at ignoring hidden elements, but that's not explicit.
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 one clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. No redundancy, no fluff.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context: for example, whether it extracts text from all matching elements or just the first, whether it respects visibility as in the CSS 'visibility' property, and how it handles JavaScript-rendered content. The current description is too thin for a tool that depends on CSS selector semantics.
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 defines 'selector' with a default 'body', but the description adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should elaborate on the selector format (CSS selector), but it just restates 'given CSS selector'. The description adds a little value by indicating 'visible text', which clarifies the extraction scope, but it's minimal.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Extract') and resource ('visible text under the given CSS selector'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click_text' or 'read_page'. It's clear but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'read_page' which may also extract text content.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention how it differs from 'read_page' or 'dom_analysis', nor does it specify suitable contexts such as extracting text from a specific element after navigation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.