WebRun Browser Automation

List scheduled agents

list_agents

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the account's scheduled agents (cron deployments): schedule, status, next/last run, and whether each is standalone or deployed from a workflow. Scoped to the bound environment when this connection has one; pass scope "all" for every environment. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	'environment' (default when bound) lists agents in the bound environment; 'all' lists every agent on the account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`scope`	Yes
`agents`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds 'Read-only' to confirm. It also explains what data the tool returns (schedule, status, run times, deployment type) and the scope behavior, which goes beyond the s chema. No contradictions found.

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, front-loading the primary function, then adding the key scope nuance and a read-only note. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed, what fields are returned, how scope works, and the safety profile. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides a complete description of the scope parameter with 100% coverage. The description essentially restates the same scope information without adding new semantic details. Thus, baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists the account's scheduled agents (cron deployments) and enumerates the exact information returned (schedule, status, next/last run, standalone/deployed from workflow). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workflows and list_environments by focusing on agents.

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 clarifies when to use this tool by explaining the scope parameter: it is scoped to the bound environment unless scope 'all' is passed. This gives clear context for how to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases.

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?