Gets a console message by its ID. You can get all messages by calling list_console_messages.
Gets a console message by its ID. You can get all messages by calling list_console_messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msgid | Yes | The msgid of a console message on the page from the listed console messages | |
| pageId | Yes | Targets a specific page by ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{}New value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the useful provenance hint that ids come from list_console_messages, but says nothing about what a message contains (text, level, source URL, stack trace) or what happens if the msgid is stale or belongs to another 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one routing fact an agent needs. Nothing extraneous.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow. The only real gap is return-value shape, which an agent would have to discover by calling it.
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 both params are already documented, and the description adds only the cross-reference that msgid values originate from the console-message listing. No format or edge-case guidance (e.g., numeric id validity, pageId/msgid pairing) beyond what the schema supplies.
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 ('Gets') plus resource ('a console message') and the key selector ('by its ID'). It also names the sibling tool list_console_messages, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the bulk-listing counterpart.
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 second sentence tells the agent how this tool relates to list_console_messages, implying retrieval-after-listing as the intended workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer the list tool and filter client-side), but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.