Daytona Playwright MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this requires an active browser session, potential performance impacts for large pages, error handling for invalid selectors, or that it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get HTML content') and adds essential qualification ('from the page or a specific element'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, without annotations, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like session requirements or error cases, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (selector and outer). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the selector's purpose without details. Since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance semantics significantly.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML content'), specifying it can target 'the page or a specific element'. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_get_text (text vs HTML) and browser_get_attribute (attributes vs HTML), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like preferring browser_get_text for plain text, browser_screenshot for visual capture, or browser_evaluate for JavaScript execution. The description implies usage through 'page or a specific element' but offers no explicit when/when-not context.

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