Capture a viewport or full-page screenshot and save it as a JPEG in the current project, with a 10-second timeout fallback.
Save viewport screenshot in current project (JPEG, 10s timeout, with fallback)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| fullPage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states JPEG format, 10s timeout, and fallback, but does not mention side effects, return values, or what happens on failure. It doesn't clarify if the screenshot is saved to disk or returned, nor the behavior of the fallback. This is minimal disclosure 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is structurally sound and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits essential information about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The sentence earns its place but doesn't add enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the return value, or the fallback mechanism. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional documentation. The minimal information about JPEG and timeout is helpful but insufficient.
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?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'name' or 'fullPage'. The description mentions 'viewport screenshot' but does not clarify the purpose of 'name' (likely a filename) or 'fullPage' (likely to capture full page vs viewport). Since the description provides no parameter semantics, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'viewport screenshot', with context 'in current project' and additional details like JPEG format, timeout, and fallback. It distinguishes itself from most siblings, though browser_mark_screenshot might be a close alternative, but the description is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'with fallback' but doesn't explain what that means or when to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.