Reads visible text from the current browser page so you can gather research without manual copying.
Read visible page text for research.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "browser_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Visible page text' hints that only rendered, non-hidden text is returned, which is genuinely useful, but it never says whether output is truncated, how the single 'limit' parameter is applied, or whether it requires an already-open 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?
A single short sentence with no redundancy, and the distinguishing word 'visible' is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, and 'for research' spends words without adding meaning.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is the only source of truth and it supplies roughly one clause. An agent cannot tell what the result looks like, whether it is paginated, or how limit behaves.
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 one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Units, default, and whether it truncates characters or elements are entirely undocumented, so the agent must guess.
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 clear verb and resource: 'read visible page text'. The word 'visible' scopes it apart from DOM-level or image capture tools, so an agent can distinguish it from browser_screenshot. The trailing 'for research' is vague filler, but the core purpose 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?
'For research' is not usable when-to-use guidance; it names no condition, prerequisite, or alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over browser_snapshot or browser_screenshot, even though those siblings overlap in intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.