Read a file from a browser session's machine; returns base64 content and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return type (base64 content and metadata) but doesn't cover error behavior, permissions, or implicitly confirming no side effects beyond the verb 'read'.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every word adds 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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description's brevity is acceptable. It covers what the operation does and its return form, though more parameter detail would help.
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 0%, and the description only vaguely implies the parameters ('browser session' for session_id, 'a file' for path) without explicitly explaining their roles or expected formats.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a file from a browser session's machine'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like write_file and list_files by clearly indicating content retrieval and return format.
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 context is clear: use it to read a file from a browser session. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the read vs. write/list distinction is implicitly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: session lifecycle (run, cancel, wait, message, share), file operations (list, read, write), and agent discovery. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even the session-related tools are clearly separated by their verb.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (cancel_session, list_files, run_agent, etc.). The pattern is uniform across session, file, and agent operations, making the API highly predictable.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a computer-use agent API. It covers agent discovery, session lifecycle, messaging, sharing, and file access without unnecessary bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers the core workflow: list agents, run them, wait for results, send follow-ups, cancel, share, and access files. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no list_sessions or delete_file), but they do not block the primary use case.