Retrieve page content from Tmall/Taobao seller backends after login. Optionally pass a CSS selector to extract a specific section instead of the entire page.
获取页面内容（需要先登录）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | No | CSS 选择器（可选，不填则获取整个页面） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does reveal the authentication requirement, which is valuable, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the page isn't loaded, or the structure of the returned content.
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 short sentence that conveys the core action and the critical login prerequisite. It is efficient and front-loaded, though its brevity leaves behavioral and return-format questions unanswered.
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 single-parameter getter, the description plus schema covers the invocation basics and the login prerequisite. However, with no output schema and no mention of the return format, an agent cannot tell whether the result is HTML, visible text, or a structured representation.
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 tool description itself adds no parameter detail; all selector semantics live in the schema, where 'CSS 选择器（可选，不填则获取整个页面）' already covers optionality and default behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with '获取页面内容', a concrete verb-object pair that clearly names the action and resource. This distinguishes it from navigation, clicking, typing, and screenshot siblings, though it does not explicitly say whether the content is HTML, text, or DOM.
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 parenthetical '需要先登录' explicitly states a precondition: the tool must be used after login. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention alternatives like tmall_screenshot or tmall_navigate or state when to prefer this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.