Retrieve console messages captured by the extension, with options to clear the log or filter by tab, URL, or title.
List console messages captured in the page by the companion extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | Clear the captured console log after reading. | |
| targetId | No | Chrome tab id to target. | |
| urlIncludes | No | Match the target tab by URL substring. | |
| titleIncludes | No | Match the target tab by title substring. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that messages are listed, but fails to disclose that the clear parameter can wipe the log after reading, or any read-only guarantees. This is a minimal disclosure of behavior beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without verbosity. However, it is almost too sparse, omitting relevant behavioral and targeting information, though it remains structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits any mention of tab targeting behavior, the clear parameter's side effect, or the format of the returned messages. An agent would lack context to use it correctly beyond a basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context about parameter usage, such as how targeting works or the effect of clear. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (console messages) and mentions the source (captured by companion extension). It is distinct from siblings like chrome_list_network_requests because it focuses on console messages, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chrome_inspect or chrome_list_network_requests. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.