Inspect or maintain WebSense browser sessions: read status, logs, cookies, clipboard, screenshots, accessibility trees, or evaluate JavaScript.
WebSense itself, and raw reads: op=status, session, logs, cookies, clipboard, screenshot, ax, evaluate, main_w…
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | Yes | what to inspect or maintain | |
| url | No | ||
| func | No | ||
| kind | No | for logs: network | console | |
| query | No | ||
| tabId | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| frameId | No | frameId (omit=top) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'raw reads' and lists ops without explaining side effects, permissions, rate limits, or safety for mutating ops like reload, respawn, or evaluate. It also truncates before finishing the list.
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 truncated fragment ending in an ellipsis, lacking a front-loaded purpose. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting the opportunity to state what the tool does and how to use it.
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?
Given 13 ops, 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is far too incomplete to guide correct invocation. It leaves critical gaps in purpose, usage, and parameter mapping.
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 coverage is only 38%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It merely enumerates some op values and leaves url, func, query, tabId, action, and frameId without added semantic meaning, adding little beyond the enum itself.
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 is a truncated fragment that lists op values rather than stating a clear verb+resource. 'raw reads' gives a hint, but the overall purpose is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like act, browse, or websense_guide.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are provided. The description offers no routing information among the sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.