debug_page_textRetrieve the visible text from the current page's main or body content, clipped to a set character limit, to inspect what LinkedIn displays. Use for quick debugging of the active tab.
Return the innerText of (or body) of the current tab, clipped. Cheap way to see what LinkedIn is showing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that the result is 'clipped' and comes from 'innerText', which is useful. It does not disclose performance implications or edge cases, but given the simple read-only nature, the bar is lower. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the contextual note ('Cheap way...') is brief. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that maxChars limits the returned text length, nor does it describe the return type (string implied by 'innerText'). It also lacks mention of what happens when the limit is exceeded. These gaps are minor but present.
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?
The schema has a single parameter maxChars with no description (coverage 0%). The description mentions 'clipped' but does not explicitly link this to maxChars. An agent cannot tell from the description that maxChars controls the clipping limit, its default, or its bounds. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the action ('Return the innerText of <main> (or body)') and scope ('current tab, clipped'). It distinguishes this from other debug tools by focusing on visible text extraction. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, so it lacks strong differentiation against debug_snapshot or debug_find.
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 phrase 'Cheap way to see what LinkedIn is showing' implies a quick inspection use case, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this instead of other tools like debug_snapshot or debug_navigate. No alternatives are mentioned, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.