Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Theseus

Theseus

by ywapom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_page

Read the current page to list visible controls with indexes, headings, dialogs, and errors so an AI agent can choose browser actions.

Instructions

List the page's visible controls with indexes, plus headings, dialogs and errors.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "read_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the scope of what is returned (visible controls, headings, dialogs, errors) and 'visible' implies hidden DOM is excluded. However it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether it costs a round trip, or how the output is ordered/bounded — leaving the mutation and performance profile unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause (controls with indexes / headings / dialogs / errors) names a distinct returned category. Slightly compressed to the point that 'errors' is vague on its own.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it sensibly summarizes what categories appear. What is missing is workflow guidance relative to the many siblings and any note that it is the safe read-only entry point, but the core is adequate for such a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No conflicting or missing parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — lists the page's visible controls with their indexes, plus headings, dialogs and errors. This is concrete enough that an agent knows it retrieves page structure rather than pixels (screenshot) or a single element's error (inspect_error), though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'indexes' hints this is the discovery step that feeds click_index/fill, but the description never says when to call it versus screenshot, inspect_error, or assert_state. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools