browser_consoleRead console messages, uncaught exceptions, and failed or 4xx/5xx requests since the last read; each read drains the buffer, so use it after reproducing a problem.
Read what the page reported since the last read: console messages, uncaught exceptions, and failed or 4xx/5xx requests. Each read drains the buffer, so read it after reproducing a problem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the critical, non-obvious trait that each read *drains* the buffer, which shapes call ordering in a way annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) cannot express. That single sentence prevents a real failure mode (losing diagnostics by reading too early).
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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the scope of returned data is front-loaded ahead of the drain warning and usage hint.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what comes back and how to time the call. It does not describe the shape/volume of the returned payload (e.g., truncation or ordering), a minor remaining gap.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.
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?
Specific verb (read) plus a precise enumeration of the resource: console messages, uncaught exceptions, and failed/4xx-5xx requests. An agent can immediately distinguish it from browser_page (DOM content) or browser_eval (executes code).
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?
"Read it after reproducing a problem" gives a clear timing condition for invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to prefer browser_doctor for environment diagnostics), so it isn't fully explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.