WebRun Browser Automation

Answer guardrail prompt

guardrail_response

Destructive

Respond to a guardrail trigger when the browser agent needs human input (credentials, clarification, approval). The response is handed to the live agent, which continues acting on it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	No	Optional file IDs to attach: ids returned by POST /files/upload, or any file already in one of the user's environment catalogs (GET /environments/:id/files). Max 5 files.
`newState`	No	How to continue: 'resume' (default) provides the requested input and continues the task; 'deny' declines the request (response text optional).
`response`	No	Your response/instructions to the agent. Required when newState is 'resume'.
`sessionId`	Yes	Session ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	No
`message`	No	What happened and what to do next (poll get_task_status)
`success`	Yes
`sessionId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / files / description

Previous value: -"Optional file IDs to attach (from /files/upload). Max 5 files."New value: +"Optional file IDs to attach: ids returned by POST /files/upload, or any file already in one of the user's environment catalogs (GET /environments/:id/files). Max 5 files."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "What happened and what to do next (poll get_task_status)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sessionId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "taskId": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the response is handed to the live agent, which continues acting on it. This explains the downstream effect beyond what annotations supply. Annotations already indicate mutating/non-read-only behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Respond to a guardrail trigger'), then gives the trigger context and the key behavioral detail about the live agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a tool with a rich schema and annotations. It covers purpose, trigger context, and the handoff behavior; the schema covers parameters and output, while annotations cover safety and mutability. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all four parameters in detail. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but given the full schema coverage, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Respond to a guardrail trigger when the browser agent needs human input.' It clearly identifies the tool's role and differentiates it from sibling tools because none of the sibling names mention guardrail triggers, and the human-input context is explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states when to use the tool: when the browser agent needs human input such as credentials, clarification, or approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guardrail-trigger context is specific enough to guide selection.

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

All WebRun Browser Automation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?