Enumerate form inputs on a web page to identify fields for automated filling, validation, or scraping. Target a tab, browser profile, or CSS selector as needed.
Enumerate form inputs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. | |
| selector | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Enumerate' weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about return format, whether it waits for the page, whether it covers shadow DOM/iframes, or what authorization/state is assumed.
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?
Three words contain no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the description is too small to front-load any useful information for a three-parameter browser automation tool.
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, low parameter coverage, and a dense sibling set, the definition leaves virtually everything an agent needs unanswered. It is not adequate for invoking this tool correctly on the first try.
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 only 33% (two of three parameters undocumented), and the description adds no parameter information at all. It does not explain what 'tab' or 'selector' mean or how they scope the enumeration, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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+resource ('enumerate form inputs'), so the basic operation is graspable. However, it gives no scope (current page? frame? whole session?) and does not differentiate from siblings like sleeper_find, sleeper_extract, sleeper_snapshot, or sleeper_fill_form, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternative tools. With 50+ siblings including several read/enumerate-style tools, the absence of any routing signal is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.