Retrieve recent in-memory bridge log lines to debug browser automation and inspect daemon activity. Use limit and since filters to fetch the entries you need.
Return recent bridge log lines (in-memory ring buffer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the in-memory ring-buffer nature (bounded, ephemeral, older lines dropped), but says nothing about ordering, timestamp format, permissions, or whether the log is per-tab or global.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the ring-buffer qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two entirely undocumented parameters, the one-line description is too thin — an agent has no basis for choosing between it and the console-log siblings or for constructing a valid "since" value.
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% and both parameters are undocumented. The description explains neither "limit" (default 200) nor "since" (an untyped string with default null, presumably a timestamp or cursor) — format and semantics of "since" are the kind of detail an agent cannot infer.
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?
"Return recent bridge log lines (in-memory ring buffer)" gives a specific verb and resource, but "bridge" is unexplained jargon and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling browser_console_logs or browser_watch_console, leaving the agent unsure which log source it retrieves.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. With two closely named log siblings (browser_console_logs, browser_watch_console) and a related browser_audit, the description should state whether this covers extension/bridge-side log lines versus page console output, but it offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.