PlayMCP Browser Automation Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping or redundant purposes, causing confusion. For example, 'evaluateWithReturn' and 'executeJavaScript' appear nearly identical, 'mouseClick' and 'click' differ only in input type, and 'moveMouse' and 'mouseMove' are essentially synonyms. This overlap makes it difficult for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool without trial and error.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming conventions are mixed, with some tools using verb_noun patterns like 'getPageTitle' and others using simple verbs like 'click' or 'hover'. While most names are readable, the inconsistency in structure (e.g., 'getElementContent' vs. 'takeScreenshot') and occasional redundancy (e.g., 'screenshot' and 'takeScreenshot') detract from predictability, though not to a chaotic level.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, the count is excessive for a browser automation server, leading to bloat and potential confusion. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., merging mouse-related actions or JavaScript execution tools), and the high number suggests over-specialization rather than a well-scoped set, making it harder for agents to navigate efficiently.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of browser automation tasks, including navigation, interaction, content extraction, and debugging. However, there are minor gaps, such as missing tools for handling cookies, managing tabs, or simulating more complex user gestures, which agents might need to work around but core workflows are largely supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Click an element' offers no information about what happens during the click (e.g., does it wait for the element to be visible, handle errors, trigger page changes, or require specific page states?). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with just three words, 'Click an element', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word contributes directly to the core action, making it efficient in terms of brevity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, parameter details, usage context, or output expectations. For a tool that likely interacts with a web page, this minimal description does not provide enough information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('selector') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about it. There is no explanation of what 'selector' means (e.g., CSS selector, XPath), its format, or examples. With low schema coverage and no compensatory details in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Click an element' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'click' with minimal elaboration. While it specifies the action (click) and target (an element), it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'mouseClick' or 'selectOption' that might perform similar interactions. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. With multiple sibling tools involving clicks or interactions (e.g., 'mouseClick', 'selectOption', 'handleDialog'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool for a given scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Take a screenshot' implies a read-only operation that captures visual data, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if the path is invalid, whether it requires an active browser session, potential side effects, or how it interacts with the browser state. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Take a screenshot', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, though it's under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools including 'takeScreenshot'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, or differentiate it from similar tools. For a browser automation tool with multiple parameters, this is severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description 'Take a screenshot' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'path', 'type', or 'selector' mean, their formats, or how they affect the screenshot. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Take a screenshot' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'screenshot'. It specifies the verb 'take' and resource 'screenshot', but doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'takeScreenshot' (which appears to be a duplicate or similar tool in the sibling list). The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'takeScreenshot' (which may be similar or identical) and other browser automation tools, this lack of guidance is particularly problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without explaining critical behaviors: whether this requires a browser session, what happens on failure (e.g., if elements aren't found), if it triggers page reloads, or any side effects like visual feedback. For a tool that likely interacts with a UI, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the action. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a drag-and-drop operation in a likely browser automation context, with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover the tool's behavior, error handling, dependencies (e.g., open browser), or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for source and target elements ('from one element to another'), but doesn't explain what 'sourceSelector' and 'targetSelector' represent (e.g., CSS selectors, XPaths), their format, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Drag and drop from one element to another' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'dragAndDrop' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the action but doesn't clarify what type of elements are involved (e.g., UI elements in a browser context) or what the outcome is (e.g., reordering, moving files). Compared to sibling tools like 'mouseDrag' or 'click', it doesn't clearly differentiate its unique function beyond the basic name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser), exclusions (e.g., not working on certain elements), or compare it to similar tools like 'mouseDrag' or 'selectOption'. Without any context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('drag') without explaining what happens during the drag (e.g., mouse button press/movement/release, visual feedback, interaction with page elements), potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves UI interaction.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a UI interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or practical usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
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 input schema has 4 parameters (startX, startY, endX, endY) with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying these are coordinates for dragging, but doesn't specify units (e.g., pixels), coordinate system (e.g., viewport vs. page), or valid ranges. It partially compensates but leaves critical gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Drag from one coordinate to another' clearly indicates the action (drag) and the resource (coordinates), but it's vague about what exactly is being dragged (mouse cursor vs. element) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dragAndDrop' or 'moveMouse'. It states the basic purpose but lacks specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dragAndDrop' or 'moveMouse'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'hover' entails (e.g., does it trigger UI events, is it idempotent, what happens on errors), the need for browser context, or any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for safe tool invocation.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to the core action, though it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.
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 complexity of a browser interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'selector' parameter (e.g., what format it expects, examples like CSS selectors, or how it locates elements). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hover over an element on the page' clearly states the action (hover) and target (an element), but it's vague about what 'hover' means in this context (e.g., mouse simulation, UI interaction) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'mouseMove' or 'moveMouse'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mouseMove', 'moveMouse', or 'click'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an open browser) or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best. This lack of explicit direction reduces its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this requires a browser session, has side effects (e.g., triggering hover events), or details execution context. For a tool that likely interacts with UI automation, this lack of transparency is inadequate.
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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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's likely complexity in browser automation, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key context like dependencies (e.g., open browser), effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only vaguely implies coordinates via 'specific coordinates'. It doesn't explain what 'x' and 'y' represent (e.g., screen pixels, relative positions), their units, or valid ranges. This adds little meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 the verb ('Move') and resource ('mouse'), specifying the action of moving to coordinates. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mouseClick' or 'mouseDrag' by focusing solely on positioning without clicking or dragging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'moveMouse' (a likely duplicate), slightly reducing specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'hover' or 'mouseDrag'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens after moving the mouse (e.g., whether it triggers events, requires browser focus, or has side effects). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 complexity of a mouse interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, coordinate system details, or usage context, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 description mentions 'coordinates' but doesn't explain what 'x' and 'y' represent (e.g., screen pixels, relative to viewport, absolute positions). With 0% schema description coverage and two required parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Move mouse to coordinates' clearly states the action (move) and target (mouse), but it's vague about the coordinate system and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'mouseMove' or 'mouseDrag'. It specifies the verb and resource but doesn't provide enough context to distinguish it from similar tools.
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 like 'mouseMove', 'hover', or 'mouseDrag'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Click at specific coordinates' implies a UI interaction but doesn't specify which mouse button (e.g., left, right), whether it's a single or double click, if it requires a browser to be open, or what happens on failure (e.g., no response). This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence ('Click at specific coordinates') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by conveying the core action and target without redundancy or fluff, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a UI interaction with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., click type, error handling), parameter semantics (e.g., coordinate system), and usage context (e.g., browser state), making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (x, y) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds minimal meaning by implying coordinates are for clicking, but it doesn't explain the coordinate system (e.g., screen-relative, page-relative), units, or valid ranges. This partially compensates but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Click at specific coordinates' states a clear verb ('Click') and target ('at specific coordinates'), but it's vague about what exactly gets clicked (e.g., a mouse button, UI element) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'click' (which likely serves a similar purpose) or 'mouseDrag' (which involves dragging). It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open browser), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'click' (which might be for elements) or 'mouseDrag' (for dragging actions), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Navigate to a URL' implies a navigation action but fails to specify whether this opens a new browser, loads in an existing session, requires prior setup (e.g., via 'openBrowser'), handles errors, or has side effects like page reloads. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words—'Navigate to a URL' is maximally concise. It directly states the action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of a navigation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., interaction with browser state), error handling, and integration with sibling tools like 'openBrowser', leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('url'), the description implicitly defines the parameter's purpose as the target URL for navigation. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., must be a valid HTTP/HTTPS URL). The baseline is high due to the minimal parameter count.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Navigate to a URL' clearly states the verb ('navigate') and resource ('URL'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'goForward' or 'getPageUrl' among its siblings, leaving the scope vague regarding whether this initiates navigation or just changes the current page view.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'goForward' (for browser history) and 'getPageUrl' (for retrieving the current URL), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if typing triggers events), error handling, or performance aspects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, parameter details, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'an element' and 'text', which loosely map to 'selector' and 'text', but does not explain what a selector is (e.g., CSS selector, XPath), format requirements, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 'Type text into an element' clearly states the action (type) and target (an element), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pressKey' or 'executeJavaScript', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'pressKey', 'executeJavaScript', or 'selectOption', there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'type' over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the basic action and outcome, it lacks critical details such as execution context (e.g., browser environment, sandboxing), error handling, security implications, or performance characteristics that would be essential for safe and effective use.
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 extremely concise at just six words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 complexity of executing arbitrary JavaScript code (which carries security and reliability risks), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is inadequate. The description doesn't address execution environment, return value format, error conditions, or safety considerations needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'script' clearly documented as 'JavaScript code to execute'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid code or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Execute JavaScript code') and outcome ('return the result'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'executeJavaScript', which appears to serve a similar purpose based on naming, leaving some ambiguity about differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'executeJavaScript' or other JavaScript-related tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or specific use cases that would help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires a loaded page, if it waits for the element to exist, error handling for missing selectors, or the format of returned content. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with dynamic web content.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place by specifying both HTML and text content retrieval.
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 complexity of browser automation (with many sibling tools), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address how content is returned, error conditions, or dependencies on page state, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is for selecting an element but doesn't explain what a 'selector' is (e.g., CSS selector, XPath), provide examples, or mention validation. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property name, meeting the baseline for low coverage.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML and text content of a specific element'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like getPageSource or getPageText, which reduces it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPageSource (for full HTML) or getPageText (for all text). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'hierarchical structure' and 'parent-child relationships', which implies a tree-like output, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires a loaded page, performance implications for deep traversal, or what happens with invalid selectors. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for its scope.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON tree structure), error conditions, or dependencies like requiring an open browser page. For a tool that likely returns complex hierarchical data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters with their types, descriptions, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying hierarchy traversal, which aligns with the schema's 'maxDepth' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'hierarchical structure of page elements with parent-child relationships', which is specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'getElementContent' or 'getPageSource', but the focus on hierarchy is reasonably distinct.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getElementContent' and 'getPageSource' that might retrieve similar data, there's no indication of when hierarchical relationships are needed or what scenarios this tool is best suited for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions handling dialogs but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this blocks execution until dialog appears, what happens if no dialog is present, error conditions, or side effects. The description is too vague for a mutation tool (handling implies interaction) with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise (one phrase) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and handling browser dialogs (which can involve mutation and complex interactions), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify when 'promptText' is required or how it interacts with dialog types). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the action ('handle') and resource ('browser dialogs'), with specific examples of dialog types (alerts, confirms, prompts). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'click' or 'selectOption' that might also interact with browser UI elements, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for browser interaction (e.g., 'click', 'type', 'selectOption'), there's no indication of when a dialog requires this specific handler versus other methods, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Launch a new browser instance' implies a creation/mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if a browser is already open, whether it's resource-intensive, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a tool that likely initiates a significant system process, this is inadequate behavioral context.
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 maximally concise - a single clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.
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's complexity (launching a browser instance), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after launch, whether the browser persists, what capabilities it has, or how it integrates with other browser tools. For a foundational tool in a browser automation suite, this leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, while the schema shows 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but since there ARE 2 undocumented parameters (headless, debug) that the description completely ignores, this creates a significant gap. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 the action ('Launch') and resource ('a new browser instance'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'navigate' or 'closeBrowser', but the verb 'Launch' is specific enough to convey this is about creating a browser instance rather than interacting with an existing one.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for browser interaction (like navigate, closeBrowser, screenshot), there's no indication whether this should be called first, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires an active browser session, what happens if dimensions are invalid, if it affects page rendering, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or practical usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, with only 2 parameters (width and height) that are self-explanatory for a resize operation, the baseline is 3 as the schema provides the structure, though the description adds no value beyond it.
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 the action ('resize') and target ('browser viewport'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'screenshot' or 'takeScreenshot' which also involve viewport manipulation, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser), exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'screenshot' that might serve similar testing purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'enhanced feedback' but doesn't clarify what that means—whether it's visual cues, return values, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves key behavioral traits like side effects or response format unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('scroll the page'). It avoids unnecessary words, though 'with enhanced feedback' could be more specific to improve clarity without adding bulk.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enhanced feedback' includes, how errors are handled, or what the tool returns. For a 3-parameter tool with no structured support, more detail on behavior and outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (x, y, smooth). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying scrolling occurs 'by specified amounts', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like units or default behaviors beyond what's in schema descriptions.
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 the action ('scroll') and the resource ('the page'), specifying it's done 'by specified amounts with enhanced feedback'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mouseDrag' or 'mouseMove' which might also involve movement, though scrolling is distinct in purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'mouseDrag' for dragging or 'navigate' for page navigation, there's no indication of when scrolling is preferred over other methods or what 'enhanced feedback' entails in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires the element to be visible/interactable, if it triggers events, error conditions, or what happens with invalid values. For a web automation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 complexity of web automation, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after selection, error handling, or prerequisites like page loading, leaving the agent with significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'values' has a description). The description mentions 'dropdown or select element' which hints at the 'selector' parameter's purpose, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema description on 'selector' or provide format/usage details.
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 the action ('Select option(s)') and target ('in a dropdown or select element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'click' or 'type' that might also interact with form elements, missing full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for web interaction (e.g., 'click', 'type', 'handleDialog'), there's no indication of when this specific dropdown selection tool is appropriate versus other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., saves to a file, returns image data), potential side effects (e.g., may fail if browser not open), or constraints (e.g., permissions needed). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool in a real-world context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It implies 'page' and 'specific element' as targets, which loosely maps to the 'fullPage' and 'element' parameters, but doesn't explain their interaction or the 'path' parameter's role. With 67% schema description coverage (two parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3, as the schema does some heavy lifting but the description doesn't fully compensate for gaps.
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 the action ('take a screenshot') and the target ('page or specific element'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'screenshot' tool, which appears to be a duplicate or similar functionality, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'screenshot' tool or other related tools like 'getImages', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open browser) or contexts for use, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but fails to describe key traits: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid file paths), if it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or expected results, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'filePaths' has a description), so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'selector' means (e.g., CSS selector for the file input) or provide context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters, but the description adds no value.
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 the action ('upload files') and the mechanism ('through a file input element'), which distinguishes it from general file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dragAndDrop' or 'type' that might also handle files, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dragAndDrop' for file uploads or other browser interaction tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser or specific page state) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions waiting for a selector to appear but omits critical details such as polling behavior, error handling (e.g., what happens if the selector doesn't appear), default timeout implications, or whether this is a blocking operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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's complexity (involving timing and DOM interactions), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or interaction with other tools like navigation or user actions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'timeout' has a description), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what a 'selector' is or provide examples, nor does it clarify timeout behavior beyond the schema's default value. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, resulting in minimal added value.
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 the action ('wait for') and target ('specific selector to appear on the page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'waitForText', which serves a similar waiting function but for text content rather than selectors.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'waitForText' or other waiting mechanisms. It lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool waits for text to appear, implying it's a blocking operation, but doesn't describe what happens on success (e.g., returns true), failure (e.g., timeout error), or other behaviors like polling frequency or interaction with page state. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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's moderate complexity (blocking wait operation with timeout), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'timeout' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'text' parameter's semantics (e.g., exact match, substring, case sensitivity) or provide context for the timeout. Baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage, but the description fails to compensate for gaps.
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 the action ('wait for') and target ('specific text to appear on the page'), which distinguishes it from other browser automation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar waiting tools like 'waitForSelector' in the sibling list, which would require more specific comparison.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'waitForSelector' or other text-retrieval tools such as 'getPageText'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Close the browser' implies a destructive action that terminates a session, but it doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what happens to open tabs/data, or if confirmation is needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and perfectly sized for such a simple tool.
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 this is a mutation tool (closing implies destruction) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'close' entails behaviorally, what happens post-execution, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score above 3 due to the absence of parameters to explain.
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 the action ('Close') and resource ('the browser'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'openBrowser' or 'navigate', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what context it's appropriate for. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser first) or exclusions, leaving usage entirely to inference from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all console messages (including logs, errors, warnings), if it clears the console buffer, requires specific browser state, or returns structured vs. raw data. 'Get' implies read-only, but details are lacking.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get console messages from the browser' is front-loaded and precisely conveys the core function without fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (retrieving dynamic browser data), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return format (e.g., list of messages with timestamps/types), potential limitations (e.g., only works in certain browser contexts), or error conditions, leaving gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.
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 'Get console messages from the browser' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (console messages) with specific scope (from the browser). It distinguishes from siblings like getPageSource or getNetworkRequests by focusing on console output, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an open browser session), typical use cases (debugging JavaScript errors), or when other tools like getPageText or evaluateWithReturn might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without detailing how it behaves. It lacks information on output format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error handling, dependencies (e.g., requires a page to be loaded), or performance considerations (e.g., speed, limitations).
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'forms' means in this context (e.g., HTML form elements, their attributes, or extracted data), the return value, or any behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have optionally clarified implicit context (e.g., 'current page' as an implied parameter). Since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified.
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 the action ('Get') and target resource ('all forms from the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'getElementContent' or 'getPageText', which might also retrieve page content in different formats.
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?
The description provides minimal guidance, implying usage when forms on a page are needed, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'getElementContent' for form-specific data or how it relates to other page content tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify return format, pagination, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., browser state). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are omitted.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without redundancy or fluff, making it ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'images' includes (e.g., list of URLs, image data), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., only visible images). For a tool in a browser automation context with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing solely on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('images from the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getLinks or getMetaTags by specifying images. However, it lacks specificity about what 'images' entails (e.g., URLs, metadata, content), preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open browser page), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like getPageSource or screenshot, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to describe key traits like the return format (e.g., list of URLs, HTML elements), pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for a simple tool.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It does not explain what 'all links' means (e.g., format, scope like internal vs. external), or how results are returned, leaving the agent with insufficient context to handle the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, earning a high baseline score as it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose.
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 the action ('Get all links') and the resource ('from the current page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getElementContent' or 'getPageText' that might also retrieve link-related information, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'getElementContent' for specific elements or 'getPageSource' for raw HTML. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser) or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like whether it returns real-time or historical requests, format of output, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'network requests' includes (e.g., HTTP requests, timing), the return format, or any behavioral context, leaving gaps for a tool that likely returns complex data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('network requests made by the page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'getConsoleMessages' or 'getScripts', which also retrieve specific page data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get' tools for different page elements. It implies usage in a browser context but offers no explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on how it behaves: e.g., does it return plain text or formatted text, is it affected by JavaScript rendering, are there rate limits, or does it require specific page states? This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 complexity of browser interaction tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'text content' includes (e.g., visible text, hidden text, formatting), how it's retrieved, or potential errors, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional value is required beyond stating the action.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'text content of the current page', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like getElementContent or getPageSource, which might also retrieve text in different ways, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getElementContent (for specific elements) or getPageSource (for raw HTML). There's no mention of prerequisites like needing an open browser page or context about what 'current page' refers to, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe what 'Get all JavaScript code' means operationally: does it extract inline scripts, external script references, or both? Does it return raw code, URLs, or structured data? No information about format, limitations, or potential side effects is provided.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't contain any redundant or unnecessary content. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar siblings in a browser automation context, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the JavaScript code is returned in, whether it includes external vs. inline scripts, or how this differs from other page inspection tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this case. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('all JavaScript code from the current page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'executeJavaScript' or 'getPageSource', but the specificity of 'JavaScript code' provides reasonable distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getPageSource' (which might include JavaScript) or 'executeJavaScript' (which runs code). There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns raw CSS text, structured data, or URLs; if it's synchronous or asynchronous; or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's operation.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of stylesheet URLs, CSS content, or metadata), which is critical for a retrieval tool. This gap makes it harder for an agent to use the tool effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools by not introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'CSS stylesheets from the current page', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like getScripts or getMetaTags, which follow a similar pattern for different resources.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser page), exclusions, or related tools like getPageSource that might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain how it works (e.g., virtual vs. physical key press, timing, or effects on the system). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential side effects.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's safe, blocking, or has side effects), which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in automation contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'key' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid keys or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action ('Press') and target ('a key on the keyboard'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'type' or 'mouseClick', but it's specific enough to avoid vagueness or tautology.
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 like 'type' for text input or 'mouseClick' for mouse interactions. The description lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions executing code and returning results but omits critical details like security implications, execution context (e.g., sandboxing), error handling, or performance impacts. For a tool that runs arbitrary JavaScript, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and outcome, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing arbitrary JavaScript and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety concerns, execution environment, or result formatting, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a browser automation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'script' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid scripts or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Execute arbitrary JavaScript code') and target ('on the current page'), with the verb 'execute' and resource 'JavaScript code' being precise. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluateWithReturn' by emphasizing arbitrary execution rather than evaluation of specific elements or expressions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'evaluateWithReturn' or other DOM interaction tools. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires an active browser session, what format the meta tags are returned in (e.g., array of objects), or potential errors (e.g., no page loaded). This leaves gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all meta tags') and specifies the scope ('from the current page'), making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requires a loaded page) and output details, which are important for an agent to invoke it without errors. With no annotations, more behavioral information would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the action. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter information is required.
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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('all meta tags from the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getPageSource' or 'getPageText', but the specificity of 'meta tags' provides inherent distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getPageSource' (which might include meta tags) and 'getPageText' (which might not), there's no indication of when this specific extraction is preferred or what context it requires (e.g., browser must be open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an open browser/page), side effects (e.g., might be read-only or have performance implications), or output format details (e.g., raw HTML string). This leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage relative to siblings or behavioral details, which could be helpful for an AI agent in a browser automation environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('HTML source code of the current page'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like getPageText or getElementContent, which might retrieve related but different content.
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 such as getPageText (for text content) or getElementContent (for specific elements). The description implies usage for HTML source retrieval but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires a browser session to be active, if it works on all page types, error conditions, or performance characteristics.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and perfectly sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it does. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks completeness regarding behavioral context and return value format, which would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('title of the current page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPageText' or 'getPageSource', which also retrieve page content but different aspects.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getPageText' and 'getPageSource' available, there's no indication of when retrieving just the title is preferred over other page content tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., string URL), error conditions, or dependencies like requiring a page to be loaded. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a browser environment.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the browser environment or return value. It doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving some operational details unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema, which justifies a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'URL of the current page', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getPageTitle' or 'getPageSource', but the specificity of 'URL' provides adequate differentiation for a simple tool.
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 like 'getPageTitle' or 'getPageSource', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active browser session. The description implies usage in a browser context but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention what happens if there's no forward history (error? no-op?), whether this waits for page load, or any side effects. For a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place completely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple navigation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, given the lack of annotations and behavioral transparency gaps, it doesn't provide complete context about error conditions, waiting behavior, or integration with the browser session management implied by sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not adding unnecessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Navigate forward') and the target resource ('next page in history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'navigate' (which goes to a URL) and 'goBack' (implied sibling) by specifying forward navigation in browser history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when there's forward navigation available in browser history) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring a browser session or having forward history available, which would be helpful for complete guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PlayMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jomon003/PlayMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jomon003/PlayMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PlayMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jomon003/PlayMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jomon003/PlayMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jomon003/PlayMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server