Extract visible text from the current web page body, enabling AI agents to read and analyze page content directly.
Return the visible text content of the page body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format (e.g., plain string, encoded text), behavior on dynamic content, or whether it waits for page load. The phrase 'visible text' implies it excludes hidden elements, but this is not confirmed.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description should cover return format, timing, and exclusions, but it only states the basic purpose. The absence of output schema means the agent cannot infer return details from structured metadata, so these gaps are significant.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds value by clarifying what is returned, which is the only relevant semantic for a no-parameter tool. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description meets that.
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 identifies the verb ('Return') and the resource ('visible text content of the page body'), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screenshot (visual) and snapshot (likely structural/DOM), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snapshot or eval. The agent must infer from the description that get_text is for visible text only, which is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.