Get a compact tree of a page's elements with id, type, name, child count, band, and global/overlay status. Avoids the heavy raw JSON, providing just the structural overview.
The open page as a compressed tree — id, type, name, child count, band, and whether a node is a shared global or a site overlay. Never the raw document: a real page is hundreds of KB of JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavior: it returns a compressed tree, never the raw document, and reveals the included node attributes. It does not cover depth-related behavior, but the read-only nature and output scope are clearly communicated.
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 short, front-loaded with the core idea, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently communicates what the tool returns and what it never returns, without unnecessary fluff.
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 simple read-only outline tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and the key non-behavior. The main gap is the missing semantics of the depth parameter, but the overall context is still adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in common cases.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the depth parameter at all. While the schema gives the parameter name, type, and bounds, the agent is left to infer what the depth controls and what the default behavior is when omitted. The description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but does not.
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 clearly states that the tool returns the open page as a compressed tree and lists the exact fields included. It distinguishes the output from the raw document of the page, which differentiates it from raw page retrieval, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 gives clear context: use this when you need a compact structural overview rather than the raw page JSON. The explicit warning 'Never the raw document' effectively tells the agent when not to expect full content, but it does not name specific sibling tools or elaborate on when to choose alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.