Retrieve buffered Firefox console messages and uncaught errors, filter by regex pattern, and optionally clear the buffer.
Console messages and uncaught errors buffered since the server connected. pattern is a regex filter; clear=true empties the buffer after reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| tabId | No | Tab id from tabs_context; omit for all tabs | |
| pattern | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side-effect (clear=true empties the buffer) and the buffered nature of the data source, which informs the user about data freshness and mutation. However, it does not state whether reading is non-destructive by default, though this is implied.
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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds clarifications for two parameters. There is no filler, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, the agent still needs to know the return format and the default behavior of 'clear'. The description does not describe the output shape or explain 'limit', so there are gaps in the information needed to invoke the tool confidently.
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 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'pattern' as a regex filter and 'clear' as emptying the buffer, but does not clarify 'limit' (e.g., number of messages). This partially compensates but leaves a parameter undocumented.
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 states a specific resource ('console messages and uncaught errors') and a scope ('buffered since the server connected'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_page and read_network, which handle page content and network requests respectively.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies using it when console messages are needed, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.