Bowmark
Server Details
Pre-computed navigation recipes for public websites — skip explore-and-discover.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: 'ask' generates navigation recipes, and 'report_outcome' reports execution success. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both names are verbs, but one is a single word ('ask') and the other is verb_noun ('report_outcome'). This minor inconsistency is acceptable given the clear semantics.
With only two tools, the server is highly focused but may feel minimal for broader use cases. However, for its specialized purpose of recipe generation and outcome reporting, the count is reasonable.
The tool set covers the core recipe workflow (get and report). However, it lacks built-in fallback tools when recipes fail, relying on external browser tools, which limits completeness.
Available Tools
2 toolsaskFind a navigation recipe for a website taskAInspect
Pre-computed navigation recipes for public websites. CALL BEFORE any browser action on the open web (navigate, click, fetch, fill, URL guess) — replaces explore-and-discover. Returns { status, id?, shortcut?, ui_procedure?, verify_more?, error? }.
status=ok: execute exactly. shortcut first if present — fill each {name} in template with the value FROM YOUR TASK (using the parameter's description/format as the shape), URL-encode, navigate. Else ui_procedure.steps in order. The recipe is generic: parameter slots and step descriptions describe what to supply ('the destination'), not literal values — you provide the specifics. EXECUTE OPEN-LOOP: the recipe is authoritative, so run it without taking exploratory snapshots, clicks, scrolls, or screenshots to 'verify' or 'look around' — every extra browser action re-reads the entire page, which is the cost the recipe exists to avoid. Read the page ONLY at a read step, and only the part it names. Drop back into normal explore-the-DOM browsing ONLY when a step genuinely fails (its locator/page isn't what it describes); until then, trust the steps. If verify_more: true, do one cheap sanity check (page title plausible?) before committing. If step.irreversible, confirm with user. After, call report_outcome once with the returned id.
status=site_not_supported | no_useful_data | synth_invalid: miss, no id. Browse manually.
status=ambiguous_scope: retry with scopeHint set to one of error.scope_options[].pattern.
status=rate_limited: a cap on NEW recipe synthesis was hit (per-IP daily when anonymous, the account's monthly plan budget when an API key is attached). Cached/known recipes still answer normally — only first-time synthesis is capped. Do NOT retry-spam; back off (it resets at error.retry_after seconds) and browse manually until then. A free API key (bowmark.ai) lifts the anonymous per-IP cap to a plan budget.
Skip for: localhost / 127.0.0.1 / *.local / RFC1918 (10., 192.168., 172.16-31.); open-ended search with no destination. On 503 embedder_unavailable/synth_unavailable, retry once after Retry-After.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Registrable domain, optionally followed by a product-surface path — 'google.com', 'docs.stripe.com', 'google.com/maps'. No scheme/port. A path is treated as an implicit scopeHint when it matches a known surface, so you can skip the ambiguous_scope round-trip for sites with multiple surfaces. | |
| task | Yes | Plain-English intent, e.g. 'find Apple's latest 10-K'. No URLs — intent, not destination. | |
| variants | No | Optional. Behavior facets when one matters: `{ auth_state: 'logged_in'|'logged_out', role: 'owner'|'admin'|'member'|…, locale: 'en-US', region: 'EU', currency: 'USD' }`. Set `auth_state: 'logged_in'` (with `role` when the privilege matters) to request the SIGNED-IN view of a recipe — the owner-only surface behind login — vs the default logged-out one. The assumed facets come back on `variants_assumed`. Affects cache key — omit when uncertain (you get the logged-out view). | |
| scopeHint | No | Optional. Only after a prior `ambiguous_scope` — pass one of `error.scope_options[].pattern` verbatim (leading slash, no trailing). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: open-loop execution, read-only nature, cost of extra actions, rate limiting, retry logic, and how to interpret the response. It sets expectations for agent conduct precisely.
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 lengthy but well-structured with bullet points for statuses and skip conditions. Every sentence adds necessary context. Slight verbosity is justified by tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the return shape, execution protocol, error states, and edge cases. An agent can confidently use the tool with this guidance alone.
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?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: explains 'site' as registrable domain with optional path, 'task' as plain-English intent, 'variants' with auth_state impact, and 'scopeHint' usage only after ambiguous_scope. This aids correct parameter usage beyond schema.
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 title 'Find a navigation recipe for a website task' and the opening line 'Pre-computed navigation recipes for public websites' clearly state what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the only sibling 'report_outcome' by being the pre-action planning tool.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call 'BEFORE any browser action on the open web' and that it 'replaces explore-and-discover'. Provides clear skip conditions (localhost, open-ended search) and detailed handling of each status including fallback to manual browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_outcomeReport whether a Bowmark recipe ran cleanlyAInspect
Report whether the RECIPE ran cleanly — not whether you got the user a good answer. Call ONCE per envelope after you finished walking the recipe OR abandoned it.
success: true = every step executed AS WRITTEN. Each locator resolved on the first try, no extra clicks/scrolls/waits beyond the recipe, no JS-eval workarounds, no skipped steps, no substituted selectors. If you walked the recipe clean, report true — even if the answer turned out wrong (answer correctness is a separate concern).
success: false if ANY of these happened, even when you eventually helped the user: a locator missed, a click did nothing, you retried with a different selector, you fell back to raw browser code (browser_run_code_unsafe etc.), you scrolled or clicked extra to recover state, you skipped a step, the recipe led somewhere unexpected. Honest failures trigger a re-crawl that fixes the recipe; false true silently degrades it for everyone.
Quick check before reporting: if your tool-call sequence since the recipe started is longer than the recipe's step list, that's false. If you used raw browser code, that's false.
Skip when: ask returned a miss (no id); user interrupted mid-execution; you read the envelope but didn't execute it; task is still waiting on user input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes | True ONLY if the recipe ran clean — every step as written, no retries, no JS-eval fallbacks, no extra clicks. False on ANY deviation, even if the user got the right answer another way. | |
| evidence | Yes | REQUIRED on every call. Describe how the RECIPE behaved — NOT what you found for the user. `{ what_happened: string, error?: string, screenshot_id? }`. `what_happened` should name which steps ran clean and which needed retries/substitutions/JS-eval/extra clicks. ❌ 'Found restaurant X with 4.9 stars' (task outcome). ✅ 'All 6 steps ran as written' (clean). ✅ 'Steps 1-4 clean. Step 5 `All filters` locator missed; tried 3 selectors then used raw JS click. Step 6 never reached.' (hiccup). Re-crawl reads this to decide what to fix. | |
| envelope_id | Yes | `id` from a `status: ok` envelope. Miss envelopes have no `id`. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully explains what constitutes success ('every step executed AS WRITTEN') and failure, including detailed examples and a quick check rule. No contradictions.
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 thorough but well-structured with clear sections. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence serves a purpose and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, all required, with nested object and no output schema, the description covers usage, meaning of success/failure, evidence format, and skip conditions comprehensively. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant context beyond schema, especially for 'evidence' with detailed examples and guidance on what to include, distinguishing recipe behavior from task outcome.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports 'whether the RECIPE ran cleanly — not whether you got the user a good answer', specifying a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishing it from the sibling 'ask'.
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?
Explicitly states when to call ('ONCE per envelope after you finished walking the recipe OR abandoned it') and when to skip ('ask returned a miss', 'user interrupted', etc.). Provides clear conditions for success vs failure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!