Export a tab's page as a high-fidelity vector A4 PDF to a specified path, letting AI agents capture web content for reports, records, or sharing.
Generates a high-fidelity vector A4 PDF export of the tab's page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | Yes | Your tab's id (from browser_new_tab, or a tab adopted with browser_adopt_tab). | |
| output_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.31.6Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "browser_pdfOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds fidelity and page-size characteristics ('high-fidelity vector A4'), but omits whether the capture is full-page or viewport-only, whether it waits for load, and whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten. Note that writing a file to output_path is a filesystem side effect that readOnlyHint=true does not advertise, though this likely refers to page state.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (vector, A4, PDF, tab's page) carries information.
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 2-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells you what is produced but not what is required to call it correctly (loaded page, valid output directory) or what the return value confirms. Key operational details are missing.
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 50%: tab_id is documented in the schema, but output_path has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about path format, required directory existence, relative vs absolute paths, or overwrite behavior, so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 (generates/export), resource (the tab's page), and output format (high-fidelity vector A4 PDF), which implicitly separates it from browser_screenshot (raster image) and browser_content (text). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (page loaded, navigation complete), and no routing advice versus browser_screenshot, browser_content, or browser_export. The agent is left to infer the choice from the word 'PDF' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.