WebDriverIO MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral constraint 'interactable' (implying only actionable elements, not all DOM nodes), but fails to disclose other important traits like return format, pagination behavior with limit/offset, or whether this operation modifies any state.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second states usage condition. Every word earns its place and critical information is front-loaded.

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 the 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers invocation context, but lacks explanation of return values (critical since no output schema exists) and doesn't clarify what constitutes 'interactable' versus standard DOM elements. Sufficient for basic usage but leaves operational gaps.

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 structured data fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 the tool retrieves 'interactable elements on the current page' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from the standard 'wdio://session/current/elements' endpoint, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like click_element or tap_element.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use when wdio://session/current/elements does not return the desired elements.' This establishes a clear fallback condition and references an alternative approach, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.