Retrieve captured JavaScript console logs and unhandled page exceptions from a browser session. Filter by log type or limit entries to debug web page issues.
View captured JavaScript console logs (console.log, console.error, console.warn) and unhandled page exceptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max log entries to return | |
| log_type | No | Filter by type: 'log', 'error', 'warning', 'info', or 'all' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is captured (console.log/error/warn, unhandled exceptions) and the word 'captured' implies logs must already be collected, but it says nothing about retention, whether logs are cleared between calls, or ordering.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and immediately qualifying it with the concrete log types captured. Nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape of returned entries (message, timestamp, stack trace, severity), so the agent cannot anticipate the response format. For a low-complexity read-only tool with full parameter coverage, this is adequate but leaves a gap.
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 both parameters (limit, log_type) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of console.log/console.error/console.warn loosely maps to the log_type filter but adds no semantics beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb ('View') and a precise resource ('captured JavaScript console logs' plus 'unhandled page exceptions'), and enumerates the log levels captured. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like browser_network_requests or browser_export_traffic, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The debugging use case is only implied by the content type; an agent must infer that this is the tool for JS errors rather than network or DOM issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.