Browser Jet Pilot

browser_restore_shaders

Restore WebGL, requestAnimationFrame, and CSS animations disabled by a prior command. Removes the injected style element and reinstates original browser functions.

Instructions

Restore WebGL, requestAnimationFrame, and CSS animations that were disabled by browser_disable_shaders. Removes the injected style element and restores original browser functions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_restore_shaders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the restoration mechanism (removing style, restoring functions) but omits potential issues like calling without prior disable or checking state. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a simple undo tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is restored and how. Could mention return behavior or logging, but overall complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 restores WebGL, requestAnimationFrame, and CSS animations that were disabled by a specific sibling tool (browser_disable_shaders). It distinguishes itself by specifying the exact resources and the inverse action.

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 implies usage should follow browser_disable_shaders, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites, though the sibling pairing makes it evident.

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