Bypass or enforce SSL/TLS certificate warnings on HTTPS sites during browser automation. Set ignore to true to proceed past invalid certs; false to enforce checks.
Bypass or enforce SSL/TLS certificate warnings on HTTPS websites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ignore | No | Ignore certificate errors |
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 behavioral burden, and it largely fails to. It does not disclose that this is a security-sensitive toggle, how long the setting persists, whether it applies globally or to a single tab, or whether a browser restart is needed — all material for a mutation with security implications.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and scopes it to HTTPS websites. No filler, though the space saved is not spent on the behavioral context the tool needs.
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 one-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys the toggle's effect. It omits persistence/scope behavior, which is the one thing an agent genuinely cannot infer from the schema, so it is adequate but not complete.
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% for the single boolean parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description hints at the mapping ('bypass' vs 'enforce') which loosely corresponds to ignore=true/false, but adds no format, precedence, or default-override detail beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb pair ('bypass or enforce') and resource ('SSL/TLS certificate warnings on HTTPS websites'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool controls. No sibling among the browser_* tools overlaps with certificate handling, so sibling differentiation is unnecessary. It stops short of 5 only because the dual-direction phrasing slightly obscures which state the tool sets by default.
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 versus navigating, setting headers, or other browser configuration tools, nor any warning about when bypassing certificate errors is inappropriate. Prerequisites and the scope of the change (per-tab, per-session, global) are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.