Retrieve browser console logs to identify errors, warnings, and debug information during web automation and testing.
Get console messages
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_console_messages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get console messages' only restates the tool's name and offers no information about side effects, whether messages are cleared, whether this requires a loaded page, or what the returned messages look like.
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 short phrase with no filler, and it front-loads the operation. It is not verbose, though it is somewhat under-specified; still, for a zero-parameter tool, this level of brevity is acceptable.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotation, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'Get console messages.' It does not explain return format, when the tool is appropriate, or how it relates to browser_navigate, browser_evaluate, or browser_network_requests. This is insufficient context for reliable agent decision-making.
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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the parameter surface. With 0 params, the description need not add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies.
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?
'Get console messages' states a clear verb and resource, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like browser_network_requests and browser_snapshot. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential alternatives such as browser_evaluate, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling browser tools, no exclusions, and no context such as 'use after navigation' or 'use when debugging.' The only implied usage is the tautological 'get console messages when you need console messages,' which is not actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.