Send HTTP PATCH requests to update specific parts of web resources through browser automation, enabling partial modifications to existing data on servers.
Perform an HTTP PATCH request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to perform PUT operation | |
| value | Yes | Data to PATCH in the body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the PATCH operation entails (e.g., partial updates). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in an AI agent context.
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 the schema already documents both parameters (url and value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 'Perform an HTTP PATCH request' states the action (perform) and resource (HTTP PATCH request), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like playwright_put or playwright_post, which are also HTTP methods, leaving the distinction implicit rather than explicit.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose PATCH over PUT or POST, nor does it reference sibling tools, leaving usage context entirely to inference from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.