Retrieve all form fields on the current page, including labels and values, to inspect or prepare form submissions in the active or specified browser tab.
Get all form fields on the current page with their labels and values.
Args: tab_id: Optional tab to target. Defaults to active tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about whether it penetrates iframes/shadow DOM, how it handles hidden or disabled fields, pagination or size limits, or whether it touches the active tab only. The single 'Defaults to active tab' note is the only behavioral detail offered.
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?
Two short segments, front-loaded with the core purpose before the args block. Nothing is padded, though the 'Args:' stanza is the minimum needed rather than elegantly integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable: it says what it returns at a high level and clarifies the tab parameter. It omits return shape and edge-case handling, but with no output schema the agent still lacks the exact structure it will receive.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'tab_id: Optional tab to target. Defaults to active tab' explains both optionality and the effective default, which the raw schema (nullable integer, default null) does not convey. Only one parameter exists, so this is close to fully covered.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all form fields on the current page with their labels and values.' This distinguishes it from generic page readers like browser_dom or browser_html by scoping it to form fields with labels and values. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this rather than browser_dom, browser_find, browser_page_text, or the form-mutating siblings (browser_form_fill, browser_fill). The only usage context implied is 'current page,' which comes from the purpose statement rather than any explicit directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.