dock_textExtract the readable main text from a browser tab by its ID, optionally truncating it to a chosen character limit for summaries, search, or analysis.
The readable text of a tab's main content (article/main or body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | Yes | Tab id from dock_tabs or dock_open. | |
| max_chars | No | Truncate the extracted text to this many characters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it extracts the main content specifically via article/main or body elements, which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about truncation behavior or the shape/size of the returned text, leaving gaps the annotations don't fill.
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 the key noun (text) front-loaded and the extraction scope parenthesized. It wastes no words, though it may be too terse to carry the behavioral burden.
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 extraction tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could reasonably explain what the returned text looks like or how max_chars truncation surfaces, which it does not.
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 100%, so tab_id and max_chars are already documented ('Tab id from dock_tabs or dock_open'; 'Truncate the extracted text to this many characters'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource (a tab's main content) and specifies the extraction target (article/main or body), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like dock_console, dock_network, or dock_snapshot. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling dock tools (snapshot, screenshot, console, network). The agent must infer when readable text is preferable to those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.