Skip to main content
Glama

Outil.io

Report browser task

report_browser_task

Rendre compte d’une tâche navigateur : done, failed ou skipped, avec le lien de la publication, de la conversation ou de la campagne.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "report_browser_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
urlNo
typeYes
detailNo
statusYes
platformNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate that this is not read-only but also not destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the accepted status values and the kind of linked artifact being reported on, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the task ID is invalid.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though its brevity leaves important parameter meaning to inference.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter, state-changing tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers the reporting purpose and some outcome/link semantics, but omits meanings for several parameters and does not describe behavior after reporting.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the explanatory burden. It maps status outcomes and the linked publication/conversation/campaign concept, but it leaves id, detail, platform, and the exact relationship between url and type undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: reporting a browser task, with done/failed/skipped outcomes and an associated publication, conversation, or campaign link. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby task tools such as claim_browser_tasks or complete_task.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies that it is used to report task outcomes, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related task tools. It also does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when reporting should occur.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.