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 (from /files/upload). 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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds context about the handoff to the live agent and the purpose of the response, but does not detail side effects beyond what annotations already indicate (destructiveHint=true). Given annotations already signal potential destructiveness, the description provides moderate additional context but lacks depth on consequences.

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 concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and flow, with no redundant wording.

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?

The description covers the core scenario and outcome, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. It does not explicitly address potential alternatives or prerequisites, but overall it provides sufficient context for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics. The description's mention of 'response' aligns with the schema but does not enrich the meaning beyond what is already documented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Respond' and the resource 'guardrail trigger', specifying the tool's role in providing human input to the browser agent. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the guardrail/human-input context rather than task execution or session management.

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 explicitly identifies the trigger condition ('when the browser agent needs human input (credentials, clarification, approval)') and describes the flow ('response is handed to the live agent, which continues acting on it'). However, it does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of fully guiding 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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: browser_task vs create_session differentiate one-off vs persistent sessions, trigger_workflow is explicitly separated from generic task execution, and the pause/resume/stop/terminate actions are scoped to either agents or session tasks. There is no overlap where an agent could mis-select between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, pause_, resume_, stop_, terminate_, trigger_, update_, send_). Two tools deviate: browser_task (noun_verb) and guardrail_response (noun), but these are minor and still readable within the overall convention.

Tool Count4/5

21 tools is on the higher end but justified by the domain covering three distinct resource types (sessions, workflows, agents) plus environments and status/guardrail handling. It is slightly heavy but each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

Completeness3/5

Core lifecycle operations are covered for sessions (create, list, terminate, send task, pause/resume/stop task) and workflows (create, get, list, update, trigger). However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for workflows or agents (only pause/resume for agents, and no delete_workflow), and no dedicated get_agent detail endpoint. These omissions could force agents to work around missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?