browser_download_fileCopies a completed browser download or specified file from the browser device to the client machine, verifying integrity per chunk during transfer.
Copy a completed download or other explicitly supplied browser-device file to the MCP client machine with per-chunk integrity checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | ||
| remotePath | Yes | ||
| destinationPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive, non-read-only behavior. The description adds a useful per-chunk integrity-check detail and a source precondition, but does not clarify overwrite behavior, failure cases, or what happens if the source file is not available. This is acceptable but not rich.
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 sentence with the operation and destination front-loaded illusion, and the integrity-check detail appended without filler. Every part 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?
The direction and purpose are clear, and the tool is simple with only three parameters. However, overwrite semantics, destination handling, and return/result behavior are not described, leaving moderate gaps for an agent calling it autonomously.
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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for remotePath, destinationPath, or overwrite. The agent must infer path semantics and overwrite behavior purely from parameter names and 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Copy ... browser-device file' to the MCP client machine. It also scopes the source as a completed download or explicitly supplied file, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_upload_files.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve a completed download or other explicitly supplied device file to the client machine. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.