browser-mcp

browser_page_info

Retrieve current tab metadata including URL, title, viewport dimensions, and scroll positions to understand the page state.

Instructions

Return current tab metadata: url, title, viewport and scroll sizes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_page_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It correctly implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes to the page or that it may fail if no tab is loaded. It only lists return fields without addressing error handling or edge cases, but for a simple metadata fetch the essential behavior is conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The purpose and returned data are in the first clause, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to call it: it names the exact data items returned. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., nested vs flat), but that is a minor gap for a metadata retrieval tool, and the listed fields imply a clear contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter information because there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the target ('current tab metadata'), and enumerates the specific data fields it provides (url, title, viewport, scroll sizes). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_list_tabs, which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no timing or alternative-selection guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this over browser_current_tab, browser_list_tabs, or any other sibling, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., an open tab). An agent must infer its use case solely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.