snapshot_pageSave a structured snapshot of a Ninova page for later comparison, optionally adding a label to identify it.
Save a structured snapshot of a Ninova page for later comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| label | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"snapshot_pageDictOutput"New value: +"snapshot_pageOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a write), openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms persistence for later comparison but adds no detail on what the snapshot contains, storage location, or overwrite behavior beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in parameter and usage detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are the completely undocumented parameters and the absent explicit relationship to diff_snapshot, which an agent needs to complete the snapshot/compare workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. It says nothing about what 'url' should point to (a Ninova page) beyond the tool name, nor what 'label' is used for or how snapshots are named/retrieved, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Save a structured snapshot of a Ninova page'), making the action unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the obviously related sibling diff_snapshot or read_page, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'for later comparison' implies the purpose is snapshot-then-diff workflow, which is implied usage context. However, it never explicitly names diff_snapshot as the paired tool or states when to snapshot rather than just read_page, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.