Capture a screenshot from a real Chrome tab's visible viewport and return the image for inspecting page rendering; optional tab ID defaults to active tab.
Screenshot of a tab in the real Chrome (visible viewport). The image is returned so you can see it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | No | Chrome tab id (default: active tab) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that the output is an image and that the capture is limited to the visible viewport rather than the full page.
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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence is helpful for output expectations but slightly redundant, keeping it just short of perfectly economical.
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 screenshot tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, viewport scope, and return type adequately. It does not address relative usage versus other screenshot tools, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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%, and the single optional parameter tabId is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 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 states a clear action and resource: taking a screenshot of a tab in the real Chrome, scoped to the visible viewport. It implicitly distinguishes itself from browser_screenshot by specifying 'real Chrome', but does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools such as browser_screenshot or chrome_snapshot.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_screenshot, windows_screenshot, or chrome_snapshot. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage context and exclusions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.