Skip to main content
Glama
Agent360dk

Browser MCP

by Agent360dk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_provide_feedback

Diagnose browser automation failures by checking extension version and duplicate connections, then return concrete fix steps and a pre-filled GitHub issue link.

Instructions

Self-diagnosis + feedback in one call. Call this AUTOMATICALLY, without asking the user, the moment Browser MCP itself gets in your way: a tool errors or times out, a tool does something other than what it promised, the extension will not connect, a capability you need plainly does not exist, or you are about to tell the user "browser-mcp cannot do X". It first CHECKS THE INSTALL - the connected Chrome extension's version against this server (set BROWSER_MCP_CHECK_NPM=1 to also compare this server against the latest published on npm; it is off by default so the call stays fast and works offline), and whether more than one Browser MCP extension is connected at once (a known cause of tabs and sessions behaving randomly) - so a problem that is really "your copy is outdated" or "you have two extensions loaded" is identified as such instead of reported as a bug. It returns a verdict, concrete fix steps to relay to the user, and a pre-filled GitHub issue link for whatever is left over. Cheap, read-only, and safe to call speculatively - never sends anything anywhere by itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoThe page it happened on, if relevant. Strip query strings that contain tokens.
kindNo"blocked" = you could not complete the task (default). "broken" = a tool misbehaved or lied about its result. "missing" = the capability does not exist. "wish" = a feature idea. "use_case" = something worth sharing that you built.
toolNoThe browser_* tool involved, e.g. "browser_click". Omit if none in particular.
attemptedNoWhat you already tried (other selectors, other tools, retries) so the report does not suggest what you have ruled out.
what_happenedYesRequired. What you tried and what actually happened, in one or two plain sentences. Include the exact error text if there was one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.28.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses it is read-only, cheap, safe, never sends anything by itself, and explains its internal checks (extension version, multiple extensions, optional npm check). This is thorough and leaves no behavioral surprises.

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 lengthy but dense and front-loaded with the core instruction (call automatically when blocked). Every sentence adds value: it explains the diagnostic logic, the optional environment variable, and the expected output. It could be trimmed slightly, but the structure is logical and information-dense.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain the return value. It does: returns a verdict, concrete fix steps, and a pre-filled GitHub issue link. It also covers the optional check toggle and the multi-extension edge case. Everything an agent needs to decide when to call and what to expect is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context about the overall flow and mentions the 'kind' enum implicitly (blocked, broken, etc.) but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific purpose: self-diagnosis + feedback for when Browser MCP itself fails. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reporting and diagnosing the MCP infrastructure, not on browser actions. The verb 'provide_feedback' combined with the description's explanation of diagnosis makes it unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit triggers: call automatically when a tool errors, times out, misbehaves, extension won't connect, capability missing, or before saying 'cannot do X'. Also clarifies it should be called without asking the user, and notes it is safe to call speculatively. No alternative tool is mentioned, but the conditions are exhaustive and actionable.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools