Skip to main content
Glama

browser_evaluate

Execute JavaScript in browser consoles to test web applications for vulnerabilities during penetration testing.

Instructions

Execute JavaScript in the browser console

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptYesJavaScript code to execute

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the browser_evaluate tool. Evaluates the provided JavaScript script in the browser page context using page.evaluate, temporarily overrides console methods to capture logs, executes the script with eval, restores console, and returns the result object containing execution result and captured logs, or an error message if execution fails.
    case ToolName.BrowserEvaluate:
      try {
        const result = await page.evaluate((script) => {
          const logs: string[] = [];
          const originalConsole = { ...console };
    
          ['log', 'info', 'warn', 'error'].forEach(method => {
            (console as any)[method] = (...args: any[]) => { 
              logs.push(`[${method}] ${args.join(' ')}`);
              (originalConsole as any)[method](...args);
            };
          });
    
          try {
            const result = eval(script);
            Object.assign(console, originalConsole);
            return { result, logs };
          } catch (error) {
            Object.assign(console, originalConsole);
            throw error;
          }
        }, args.script);
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
                type: "text",
                text: `Execution result:\n${JSON.stringify(result.result, null, 2)}\n\nConsole output:\n${result.logs.join('\n')}`,
              },
            ],
          isError: false,
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
              text: `Script execution failed: ${(error as Error).message}`,
            }],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
  • index.ts:155-165 (registration)
    Registration of the browser_evaluate tool in the TOOLS array, specifying its name, description, and input schema which requires a 'script' string parameter.
    {
      name: ToolName.BrowserEvaluate,
      description: "Execute JavaScript in the browser console",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          script: { type: "string", description: "JavaScript code to execute" },
        },
        required: ["script"],
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the browser_evaluate tool, defining the expected arguments structure with a required 'script' property of type string.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        script: { type: "string", description: "JavaScript code to execute" },
      },
      required: ["script"],
    },
  • index.ts:32-35 (registration)
    Enum definition ToolName.BrowserEvaluate mapped to the tool name string 'browser_evaluate'.
      BrowserEvaluate = "browser_evaluate",
      BrowserUrlReflectedXss = "broser_url_reflected_xss",
      BrowserUrlSqlInjection = "browser_url_sql_injection"
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., DOM modification, network requests), return values, error handling, or security implications of executing arbitrary code.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key action. However, it could provide slightly more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite simple schema, the tool executes arbitrary JavaScript which has high complexity. Missing details on return values, error handling, and potential side effects, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (script described). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With full coverage, baseline is 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool executes JavaScript in the browser console, distinguishing it from DOM interaction siblings like browser_click or browser_fill. The verb 'Execute' and resource 'JavaScript in the browser console' are specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. For instance, it doesn't mention that it can manipulate page state or that simpler tools like browser_click should be preferred for basic interactions.

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