Capture viewport, full-page, or specific element screenshots from local Chrome/Edge sessions, with optional PNG save paths and CSS selector targeting.
Capture a viewport, full-page, or specific element screenshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fullPage | No | ||
| savePath | No | Optional file path to save PNG | |
| selector | No | Optional selector to capture single element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does 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 discloses almost nothing beyond the three modes. It does not say what is returned (image data vs. file), where output goes when savePath is omitted, whether a browser session must already be connected via vibeside_connect, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the three modes are enumerated up front. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than maximally informative.
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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the capture modes but leaves key operational questions open: session prerequisites, return format, and default save behavior. Adequate to call, but not fully 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 coverage is 67%: savePath and selector are documented in the schema, while fullPage is undocumented there. The description usefully maps its three modes onto those parameters (full-page vs. viewport vs. element), but adds no format or interaction detail, so it only marginally exceeds 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?
States a specific verb (Capture) and resource (screenshot) plus the three capture modes, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as vibeside_capture_viewport_matrix or vibeside_capture_video_frame, which also produce visual captures.
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 choose this tool over the many other visual-capture siblings (viewport matrix, video frame, visual diff, perceptual hash). Usage is merely implied by the obviousness of taking a screenshot; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.