Capture web page or element screenshots in PNG or JPEG format. Use full-page or element-specific capture to visually verify automated browser interactions.
Take screenshot of page or element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Element reference | |
| type | No | Image format | |
| element | No | Element description | |
| filename | No | Output filename | |
| fullPage | No | Capture full page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not explain whether the screenshot is returned as data, saved to a file using 'filename', or how 'fullPage' affects capture. There is no mention of side effects, output format, or element selection semantics.
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 concise and front-loaded with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices useful context, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.
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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it saves a file, how to target an element versus a page, or how the sibling browser_snapshot relates to it. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at behavioral details.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by indicating that capture can target 'page or element', which loosely maps to 'fullPage' and 'element'/'ref', but it does not clarify the relationship between 'ref' and 'element' or how 'filename' is used.
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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Take screenshot of page or element', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinct from all sibling browser tools, none of which perform screenshot capture.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, browser_snapshot could be confused with it, but the description does not explain that screenshots are for visual capture while snapshots are for accessibility/DOM state. The intended use context is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.