debugtron-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific context or action (e.g., evaluate_in_main vs evaluate_in_renderer, monitor_events vs monitor_ipc), with clear boundaries between DOM, network, debugging, and profiling tools. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores, such as get_dom_snapshot, list_pages, set_breakpoint, and stop_cpu_profile. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/544 tools is high but justified by the broad scope of Electron debugging (main process, renderer, workers, profiling, IPC, network). The count is appropriate for a comprehensive debugger, though a few utilities might be consolidated.
Completeness5/5The tool set covers the full lifecycle of debugging: launch, navigation, DOM inspection, network, console, process logs, breakpoints, stepping, profiling, heap snapshots, and IPC monitoring. There are no obvious gaps for the domain.
Average 3.8/5 across 44 of 44 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Reload a renderer page' without disclosing whether it waits for load, preserves state, or has any side effects. The behavior is assumed but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but arguably too minimal. It could include a second sentence about the optional cache bypass or the effect of reloading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sparse for a tool that performs a significant action (reloading a page). It lacks details about return values, side effects, or state changes. Given no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Page id from list_pages'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (reload) and resource (a renderer page). It distinguishes from siblings like 'navigate' (which loads a new URL) and 'screenshot' (captures image). However, it does not mention the optional cache-bypass behavior, which the schema includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'navigate' or 'resume'. The description provides no context for when reloading is appropriate or how it differs from other page manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It notes capture timing and post-exit availability, but omits whether the operation is read-only, clears the buffer, or requires specific permissions. It does not describe side effects or limitations like rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey core functionality. Remains concise without wasted words, though could be slightly more informative without increasing length (e.g., mentioning output format).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing essential context: no description of return format (array of strings, objects?) despite lacking output schema. No differentiation from get_console_logs or get_event_log in terms of log type. Doesn't clarify if logs are continuous snapshots or one-time retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for sessionId and tail. The description avoids mentioning parameters altogether, failing to enrich understanding of when to use tail or its default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving stdout/stderr output from an app process. It specifies the output is captured since launch and works post-exit, distinguishing it from siblings like get_console_logs (console messages) and get_network_log (network traffic).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_console_logs for console messages, get_event_log for events). No mention of prerequisites like the session being from launch_app or context on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks details on safety (read-only?), data retention, rate limits, or side effects of fetching logs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler. However, could be expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not mention return format, default tail value, or behavior when no logs exist. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra context for parameters (e.g., sessionId, tail, level, pageId) beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves console messages and uncaught exceptions from main process and renderer pages, distinguishing it from sibling log tools like get_event_log or get_network_log.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_process_logs, get_event_log), nor conditions like session prerequisite or default behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'read', implying no side effects, but does not explain how data is returned, whether all entries are fetched, or behavior on missing storage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the presence of 3 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'entries' means (all key-value pairs?), nor does it mention that storageType defaults to 'local'. More detail is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read) and the resource (localStorage or sessionStorage entries of a renderer page). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_dom_snapshot or query_selector which deal with DOM, not storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context for an agent to decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the basic action and a follow-up step, but fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., what if not at a function call, changes to call stack, or error conditions). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences convey the core action and a useful follow-up. No extraneous words; highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger step-into tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on behavior in borderline cases (e.g., no callable function), prerequisites beyond 'paused', and expected outcome. More context is needed for reliable usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, fully documenting both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: stepping into a function call while paused. It is specific to the 'step_into' operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like step_over or step_out, leaving distinction to the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage only while paused, which provides context, but it does not specify when NOT to use the tool or mention alternatives. The suggestion to use get_paused_state afterward is helpful but partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The reference to 'Performance.getMetrics' hints at a standard API but does not elaborate on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and includes key examples in parentheses. It is efficient and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists some return metrics but lacks full details on the structure or possible error states. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'renderer performance metrics', listing specific metrics like JS heap size and DOM node count. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_process_metrics' by emphasizing 'renderer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like 'get_process_metrics' or other monitoring tools. It lacks any context on prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states basic behavior (get source code) but omits details on truncation via maxLength, error cases (invalid scriptId), or return format. Schema covers maxLength but description doesn't reiterate its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first defines function clearly, second adds context. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the purpose is clear, the description lacks information about return format, error handling, and the optional pageId defaulting to 'main'. Given no output schema, description should provide more context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on how to obtain scriptId ('from list_scripts') but does not enhance understanding of sessionId, pageId, or maxLength beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'source code of a script', specifying the identifier 'by scriptId (from list_scripts)' and a use case 'static analysis of app.asar bundles'. This distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_in_main which execute code dynamically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for static analysis, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like evaluate_in_main for dynamic execution. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says it captures a screenshot and returns an image, omitting potential side effects, permissions required, or limitations (e.g., page must be visible).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is fact-dense and front-loaded. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return format. It lacks usage context but covers all essential operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it specifies 'PNG (default) or JPEG' and implies quality applies only to JPEG, but these details are already in the schema or easily inferred.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Capture a screenshot') and the resource ('a renderer page'), with specific output details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dom_snapshot which capture DOM structure, not visual screenshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dom_snapshot or navigate. No prerequisites or conditions for using screenshot are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read-only listing operation, which is generally safe, but doesn't specify side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no workers are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and follow-up action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details about the return format (e.g., what properties of workers are listed). While it mentions worker types, the lack of output schema means the description should compensate, but it doesn't fully describe the response. Adequate for a simple list but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (sessionId) with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists worker targets (service, shared, dedicated workers) via the Target domain. The verb 'List' and resource specification make purpose clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_pages or list_sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It suggests using evaluate_in_worker for running JS, providing helpful after-step guidance. However, it doesn't mention when to avoid this tool, prerequisites beyond sessionId, or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes a .cpuprofile file and returns a summary of hottest functions. However, it does not mention whether profiling must be active, side effects, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the output format and file type. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality (stop, collect, output) but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior start_cpu_profile), error handling, and what happens if called without an active profiling session. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., that 'top' controls the number of functions in the summary). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops CPU profiling and collects the profile. It specifies the output (a .cpuprofile file and inline summary), distinguishing it from sibling profiling tools like start_cpu_profile or get_performance_metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as indicating it should follow a call to start_cpu_profile. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description covers only execution context (main process, Electron APIs). It omits behavioral traits such as side effects, return format, error handling, or auth requirements, which are critical for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and context. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are only three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and where it operates. It distinguishes from sibling tools but could benefit from mentioning return behavior or common use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'main process' provides context but not parameter-level detail. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates a JavaScript expression in the main (Node/Electron) process via the inspector protocol. It specifies the verb 'evaluate,' the resource 'JavaScript expression,' and the context 'app's main process,' distinguishing it from siblings like evaluate_in_renderer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning Electron APIs and main process, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like evaluate_in_renderer or evaluate_on_call_frame. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read action and the optional clearing of the buffer, which is a side effect. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if no data is captured, or any authentication or rate limiting considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to monitor_ipc (prerequisite), the return structure, error scenarios, or how it compares to other logging tools among the 49 siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates the optional clear behavior, but does not elaborate on the 'tail' or 'sessionId' parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read IPC traffic captured by monitor_ipc', specifying the verb 'Read' and the resource 'IPC traffic'. It distinguishes itself from sibling log-reading tools like get_event_log, get_network_log, and get_console_logs by targeting IPC traffic specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used after monitor_ipc has captured traffic, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The optional clear behavior is mentioned, but no guidance on when to use or avoid the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it pauses execution but does not disclose side effects (e.g., suspension of process, ability to inspect state) or requirements (e.g., active session).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, directly stating the action and target. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, one-action tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core functionality, though it could mention that it is used for debugging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the default value for pageId ('main'). It does not repeat schema details, making the parameter semantics clearer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Pause execution at the next statement' with the specific targets 'main process or a renderer page.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resume' and 'step_over' by specifying the pause action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use pause versus alternatives like 'resume' or 'step_over.' It lacks context for debugging workflows or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (remove a breakpoint) but does not describe side effects, such as whether removal is immediate or requires a resumed session, nor does it mention permissions or error states. The description is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear. However, it could be slightly improved by including a brief note about the optional pageId parameter without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, and the description covers the main action and references the source of breakpointId. However, it does not mention the optional pageId parameter, which the schema describes. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the breakpointId comes from set_breakpoint, but the schema already states this. The description does not provide additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'breakpoint', and it distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that the breakpoint was previously set with set_breakpoint. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from related tools like set_breakpoint and list_breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to remove a breakpoint), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_breakpoints to find breakpoint IDs. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the expression is awaited (though the awaitPromise parameter hints at this). The description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial prerequisite. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, it lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools (e.g., evaluate_in_main, evaluate_on_call_frame) and does not describe the return value or error behavior. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., pageId from list_pages, sessionId from launch_app). It does not provide new semantic meaning for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates a JavaScript expression in a renderer page via CDP. It uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_in_main or evaluate_in_worker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use list_pages to find page ids.' This guides the agent on what information is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like evaluate_in_main for main frame execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the protocol ('flatten protocol') but does not describe return values, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks details on return values or error behavior. Given there is no output schema, this omission reduces completeness for an agent that needs to know what to expect from the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value by reinforcing that workerTargetId comes from list_workers, but this largely duplicates the schema's description. No additional clarity is provided for other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates JavaScript expressions in worker targets, specifying the verb, resource, and protocol. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_in_main and evaluate_in_renderer by mentioning workers and notes the prerequisite of obtaining workerTargetId from list_workers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear prerequisite ('Get workerTargetId from list_workers') which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like evaluate_on_call_frame, though the sibling tool names provide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by stating it 'gets' details, and enumerates the returned data clearly. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), but the nature of the tool suggests non-destructive retrieval. Overall, it is transparent about what the tool provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the returned data. It is efficient with no unnecessary words. However, the list makes it somewhat dense; breaking it into multiple sentences could improve readability, but it remains concise for the amount of information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple input (one parameter from a previous launch) and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what the agent can expect as output (versions, paths, window list with properties). Given the simplicity and the sibling context, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand usage and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (sessionId is fully described in schema), so baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not repeat or elaborate on the parameter, but that is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns Electron app details from the main process, listing specific data: Electron/Chromium/Node versions, app name/version, standard paths (userData etc.), and list of BrowserWindows with title, URL, and bounds. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools that target different aspects (e.g., DOM snapshots, process metrics, console logs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, lacking context about prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when another tool might be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state safety, error handling, or performance implications. It mentions truncation behavior, which adds value, but lacks details like authentication requirements or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear role: stating the function and the truncation behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality and truncation. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid selector) and could mention the tool's role in debugging, but overall it is sufficiently informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: clarifying that selector targets a specific element and that maxLength controls truncation. This reinforces schema descriptions and provides functional meaning, though it does not introduce entirely new information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves outerHTML of a renderer page or specific element via selector. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'outerHTML', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_selector or evaluate_in_main. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting HTML snapshots with optional element selection and truncation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_selector or evaluate_in_renderer). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional clear buffer side effect but lacks details on performance impact, authorization requirements, or return format for the events.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Read' and concisely lists the event types. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and one behavioral aspect (clearing). However, it does not explain how events are accumulated, the format of output, or the relationship to monitor_events beyond reference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with adequate parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads Electron lifecycle events (crashes, hangs, navigation, etc.) captured by monitor_events, specifying the resource and actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_process_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after monitor_events but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_process_logs or get_console_logs. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that entries include requestId for get_response_body, which is useful beyond the schema. But without annotations, it omits details like safety (read-only), authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain return structure more. It mentions entries include requestId but not other fields. With 4 parameters, it's decent but incomplete for a full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what schema provides, but the note about requestId aids understanding of output, not parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets network requests from renderer pages (Network domain), specifying the resource and context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_log or get_console_logs by focusing on network requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions requests are recorded once a page tool attaches, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like get_response_body for specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It declares the tool is for querying (implying read-only) and lists return fields, but does not explicitly state side effects, error conditions (e.g., element not found), or permission requirements. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists return values. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing element), return structure (no schema), and any dependencies or prerequisites. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description only adds context that the selector is a CSS selector, which is already in the schema. It does not explain the meaning of sessionId or pageId beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Query', the resource 'single element by CSS selector in a renderer page', and the return values ('tag name, text, attributes and bounding rect'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like get_dom_snapshot (full DOM) and evaluate_in_renderer (JS execution).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying a single element but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_dom_snapshot for full DOM, evaluate_in_renderer for JavaScript). No when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., starting twice, resource usage, permission needs, default state). Only lists captured events, which is minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. Efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and complementary tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple; description covers what events are captured and how to read them. Missing mention of default capture state or whether prior captures are replaced, but still fairly complete given sibling tool availability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description adds event type context but doesn't enhance parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool starts/stops capturing Electron lifecycle events and lists specific event types. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_log (retrieving events) and monitor_ipc (IPC events).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Read with get_event_log', indicating when to use this tool vs the retrieval tool. However, no guidance on when to start vs stop or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the paused state requirement but does not mention potential side effects of evaluating arbitrary expressions, authorization needs, or error behavior. With no annotations, description carries the full burden; it covers essential behavioral constraints but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and context, second provides prerequisite. No filler, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite and purpose but lacks details on return value, error handling, or behavior when not paused. Adequate but not fully complete for a debugging tool that returns evaluation results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds a hint that callFrameId comes from get_paused_state, which aligns with schema but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool evaluates an expression in the context of a paused call frame, specifically to access local variables. Distinguishes from other evaluate tools by specifying the paused call frame context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states the prerequisite: target must be paused and callFrameId comes from get_paused_state. Provides clear guidance on when to use, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with siblings like evaluate_in_main.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: breakpoints listed are only those set via this server (not external ones). Also clarifies scope (main vs renderer). Does not cover other traits like permissions or latency, but sufficient for basic understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear. Perfect conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema provided, so description should hint at return value (e.g., list of breakpoint IDs or details). It does not. Also, no context about prerequisites (e.g., must have an active session). Adequate for a simple tool, but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes both parameters (sessionId required, pageId optional with default 'main'). Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, which is adequate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists breakpoints set via this server, specifying scope (main process or renderer page). Verb 'list' and resource 'breakpoints' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like set_breakpoint or remove_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implies usage after setting breakpoints via this server, but does not exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like remove_breakpoint or get_paused_state are not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions 'collected via scriptParsed' which explains data population. It does not describe side effects, but 'list' implies read-only. Could be more detailed about pagination or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives actionable guidance. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so description should clarify return format (e.g., list of script IDs). It does not, relying on agent's familiarity. Otherwise covers purpose and usage adequately. Slight gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context about urlFilter narrowing down and linking to get_script_source, but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'scripts known to the Debugger domain'. It also mentions the event source (scriptParsed) and directs to a follow-up tool (get_script_source), distinguishing it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for when to use (after scriptParsed events) and what to do next (use get_script_source). Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for most scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that invoke handlers registered before monitoring are not captured, and send messages are always captured, which are important behavioral nuances. It does not mention side effects or permissions but covers key limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds detail, third provides a critical caveat. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain return values or behavior on start/stop (e.g., success indication). It mentions reading with get_ipc_log, but without an output schema, more context is needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides (action enum, sessionId). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts or stops IPC monitoring in the main process, a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like monitor_events or get_ipc_log by focusing on IPC message capture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for capturing IPC messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitor_events. It provides a caveat about invoke handlers but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses scrolling into view and clicking at center for selector mode, and using CSS pixels for coordinates. However, it does not mention whether the click triggers events, if it is left-click only, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the essential information without extraneous words, and the key aspects are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behavior and parameter interactions. It is nearly complete, though it omits return value or error handling details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the relationship between selector and coordinates, and explaining the scrolling and center-click behavior for selector mode.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: clicking in a renderer page, either by CSS selector (scrolled into view and clicked at center) or by raw CSS-pixel coordinates. It specifies the two distinct modes of operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage scenarios (selector vs coordinates) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over sibling tools like query_selector or other interaction tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: the snapshot is large, written to a .heapsnapshot file, and the file path is returned. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key behavioral notes are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the output format, and parameter defaults. It is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default for 'pageId' (main) and noting that 'filePath' defaults to a temp dir, which aids in understanding parameter behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Take') and resource ('V8 heap snapshot'), and names the target (main process or renderer page). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_dom_snapshot' which captures a different type of snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'get_dom_snapshot' or suggest typical scenarios like memory profiling versus DOM inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (reason and call stack) but does not mention behavior when not paused, side effects, or required permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and additional detail about the output. No redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value components. It could be more specific about the call stack format, but overall it provides enough context for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond restating the pageId option ('main' default). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('current paused state'), and what it includes ('reason + call stack with callFrameIds'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pause' and 'resume' by focusing on retrieving state rather than modifying execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the target is paused on a breakpoint or Debugger.pause. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear given the sibling tools list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the data returned (processes, metrics) and underlying API. Missing details on side effects, but as a read operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence conveying purpose, process types, and metrics. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has one parameter and no output schema; the description explains what is returned. Could mention the data format, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one well-documented parameter (sessionId). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets per-process CPU and memory metrics, listing specific process types and metrics. It distinguishes from siblings like get_performance_metrics which likely returns aggregate metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_performance_metrics or get_process_logs. The purpose is clear but without exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses debug ports, debug session creation, and parameter options, but omits side effects (e.g., if app already launched), error cases, and asynchronicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence covers purpose, second covers parameters and return. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given tool complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers key aspects: launch action, debug ports, parameter options, and return value. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
100% schema coverage provides baseline 3. The description adds context about mutual exclusivity of appId and exePath, adding some value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it launches an Electron app with debug ports and creates a debug session, distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_session or list_apps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises providing either appId or exePath, and notes the return of sessionId and debug ports. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but context from sibling tools makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description clearly states that the tool resumes execution, which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose any side effects or error conditions, such as what happens if not paused.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given its simplicity, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that the session must be in a paused state, which is implied but not explicit for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Resume' and resource 'execution', and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pause' or 'step_over' by stating the context 'after a pause or breakpoint hit'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a pause or breakpoint hit, but does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., session must be paused) or mention when not to use. No alternatives are suggested, though the sibling list provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action steps out of the current function and that get_paused_state can observe the new location, but does not detail side effects (e.g., call stack changes, execution resumption behavior) or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stepping tool, the description covers the essential action and follow-up. It lacks mention of error states or behavior when not paused, but is otherwise sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters documented in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'step out' and resource 'current function', clearly distinguishing from siblings like step_over and step_into. It states the action and context concisely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool should be used 'while paused' and suggests following up with get_paused_state. However, it does not explicitly compare with step_over/step_into or warn about prerequisites beyond being paused.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses core behavioral traits: it closes connections and terminates the app process. It also states idempotency via 'Safe to call twice.' Missing details on side effects to other sessions or error handling, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence captures purpose and actions; the second provides a safety note. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and idempotency. It doesn't mention return value or error states, but it is largely complete given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'sessionId' described as returned by launch_app. The description does not add further meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop a debug session') and specifics ('close CDP connections and terminate the app process'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like launch_app and pause by being the definitive session-ending operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when ending a debug session) and notes safety of calling twice, but lacks explicit instructions on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison to siblings like pause or resume.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds value by revealing that the tool includes HttpOnly cookies, which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or that it is read-only, though that is strongly implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides a key distinguishing detail. Ideal length and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the return format (e.g., array of cookie objects). It covers what the tool does and the important HttpOnly aspect, but omits output structure. Still fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions already explaining pageId, sessionId, and urlFilter. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning, only contextual background about the operation. Thus, the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves cookies from the browser network stack visible to a page, and distinguishes itself by noting it includes HttpOnly cookies not accessible via document.cookie. This specificity leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for cookie retrieval, especially when HttpOnly cookies are needed, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_network_log or get_local_storage. The context is clear, but no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses that pages may not appear immediately and suggests retrying. Does not mention if operation is read-only or any side effects, but covers timing behavior adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides necessary context: what it lists, timing, and compatibility constraints. Lacks explicit return structure but acceptable given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description for sessionId is complete (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter's source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists debuggable targets (renderer pages, webviews, workers, service workers). Uses specific verb 'list' and identifies resource. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides timing guidance ('retry if empty') and warns that page-only tools don't work on workers. Implicitly helps agent decide when to use but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_workers or list_sessions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that profiling is started, but omits side effects (e.g., performance overhead, limitation of one concurrent profile) and does not indicate if the operation is destructive or reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy: first sentence states purpose and target, second sentence links to the paired tool. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description effectively covers the start operation: what it does, parameter origins, and how to obtain results via 'stop_cpu_profile'. It is complete for its role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds valuable context for each parameter: pageId is explained as from 'list_pages' or 'main', sessionId as from 'launch_app'. This goes well beyond the schema labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool starts CPU profiling on the main process or a renderer page. It specifies the verb 'Start', the resource 'CPU profiling', and the target scope, distinguishing it from its inferred sibling 'stop_cpu_profile'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explicitly says to call 'stop_cpu_profile' to collect the result, providing a clear usage flow. It does not, however, compare this tool to other performance-related siblings like 'get_process_metrics' or 'get_heap_snapshot' to guide when to use profiling versus metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses using Input.insertText and unicode safety, which is beyond schema. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; adequate for a typing tool. Could be improved by mentioning if it replaces or appends text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, key behavior (unicode-safe, focusing), and parameters. Lacks mention of output (likely void) and potential errors, but is sufficient for a simple action tool without output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds marginal value by explaining selector behavior, but doesn't detail format or constraints beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Type text into a renderer page', specifies the verb and resource, and adds context about optional focusing via selector. Distinguishes from sibling tools like click or evaluate_in_renderer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use (typing text) and how selector works for focusing. Doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or state prerequisites, but provides sufficient context for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 discloses caching behavior (60s cache, refresh parameter) and default target behavior. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only listing tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences front-loading the purpose, return values, and a usage hint. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return values. It mentions caching, default target, and how to use the results with a sibling tool. Complete for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score is 3 since the schema already documents parameters fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List installed Electron apps', specifying the verb and resource. It clarifies scope ('on a target, local machine by default'), return fields (app id, name, executable path), and distinguishes from sibling launch_app by noting 'Use the app id with launch_app'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to list apps) and how to use the output (with launch_app). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like list_pages or get_app_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description affirms this is a read-only listing operation with no side effects. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is clear, though it could mention that it only shows active sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence that includes all necessary information without any extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no output schema, and a simple listing task, the description completely informs the agent about what to expect: a list of active sessions with app, status, and debug ports.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it is clear that no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists active debug sessions and specifies the fields returned (app, status, debug ports). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_apps or list_workers by focusing on sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as 'to see debug sessions', but no when-not or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it waits up to 5 seconds for the load event and indicates the load event is non-fatal (timeout doesn't cause failure). This adds value beyond the input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (navigate to URL), the absence of an output schema, and complete parameter schema coverage, this description fully explains the behavior (wait, non-fatal) and is sufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'renderer page' and 'URL' but those are already implied by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Navigate' and the resource 'renderer page' with a target URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reload' by specifying this is for navigation to a new URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context (waits up to 5s, non-fatal) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'reload' or the various evaluation tools. The intended usage is clear for a navigation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It correctly communicates that the tool advances execution by one statement and requires a paused state. While it could mention that it does not enter function calls, the behavior is standard and clearly implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately provides a usage hint, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: when to use it (while paused) and what to do next (observe with get_paused_state). The schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Step over the current statement while paused') using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like step_into and step_out by implying the direction of stepping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the prerequisite state ('while paused') and suggests the follow-up tool (get_paused_state). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the observation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: the tool only works for finished requests with an attached page client. No destructive or side-effect information is needed for this read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains its purpose and prerequisites. It could optionally describe the return format (e.g., raw string), but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying the origin of each parameter (e.g., 'pageId from list_pages', 'requestId from get_network_log'), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('response body of a captured network request'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_network_log' which retrieves the log, not the body.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to use 'get_network_log' to find requestIds, providing a clear prerequisite. It also states the condition that the request must have finished loading while a page client was attached, offering guidance on when the tool works.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description reveals that breakpoints work on bundled scripts and that urlRegex is an alternative. It also notes that hits are observed via get_paused_state, indicating the tool doesn't return hit status. Could be more explicit about side effects, but sufficient for no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are direct and informative. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the key parameters (url, urlRegex, pageId) and refers to a sibling for result observation. It could mention the return value (likely ack) or confirmation, but overall it's fairly complete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the use of urlRegex for bundled scripts and default pageId, and contrasting url vs urlRegex. This provides semantic context beyond parameter names and descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool sets a breakpoint by URL or URL regex, in the main process or a renderer page. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_breakpoint, list_breakpoints, and get_paused_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use urlRegex for bundled scripts, and refer to get_paused_state to observe hits. It also implies when to use this tool versus others (e.g., pause/resume for immediate suspend).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xrntkk/debugtron-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server