Retrieve browser console logs to debug JavaScript errors and warnings. Optionally clears logs after retrieval.
Get browser console logs
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": "get_console_logs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | Clear logs after retrieving |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action, omitting any side effects (like clearing logs) or return format. The optional 'clear' parameter is defined in the schema but not mentioned in the description, so critical behavioral nuance is missing.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose, earning full marks for efficiency.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. The description does not explain the return structure, potential volume of logs, or interactions with the 'clear' parameter. For a single-parameter tool, this is insufficient to fully guide an agent without additional context.
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% because the only parameter 'clear' has a description ('Clear logs after retrieving'), so the schema already defines it. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 'Get browser console logs' uses a specific verb ('get') and a clear resource ('browser console logs'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_screenshot or navigate. It is unambiguous and direct.
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 description clearly implies when the tool is needed (whenever console logs are desired), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.