Retrieve console messages from an inspected iOS Safari page—including level, text, and URL—to debug errors and log output.
Console messages of the page since the inspector attached (level, text, url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | index in inspector_pages; default the first page with a real address | |
| wait | No | seconds to wait for the page list, default 60 | |
| clear | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it omits important context such as read-only behavior, whether clear deletes messages, how limit truncates results, and what wait affects. It does disclose the temporal scope 'since the inspector attached,' which is useful but insufficient for a tool with a clear parameter.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words and the resource plus scope are front-loaded. The parenthetical return fields are concise and useful.
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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions return fields but omits the meaning of clear, limit, wait behavior, and any pagination or volume constraints.
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 only 50%, with page and wait documented but clear and limit undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter semantics; its parenthetical '(level, text, url)' describes return fields rather than input parameters.
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 identifies the specific resource (console messages), the temporal scope (since the inspector attached), and the returned fields (level, text, url). It is clearly distinct from network-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like log_tail or inspector_raw.
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?
It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as log_tail, network_log, or inspector_raw. The only implied usage is retrieving page console output, leaving alternatives and exclusions unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.