Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mochi

Mochi

by DevZonayed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_playbook_propose_update

Infer inputs and steps from a browser trace to create or update a matching playbook.

Instructions

Given a successful trace, create or update the matching playbook. Inputs and steps are inferred from the trace; selectors are tracked via the existing selector cache.

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": {
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "browser_playbook_propose_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesSuggested feature slug.
titleNo
verifiableNo
runIdNoOptional run id; trace loaded from .continuum/runs/.
traceNoOr supply trace inline.
inputsNoOptional explicit input descriptors.
outputsNoOptional explicit outputs.
screenshotsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool creates or updates (mutation), infers inputs and steps from the trace, and tracks selectors via cache. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though lacks details on side effects or permissions.

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 concise sentences front-load the main action (create/update from trace) and essential details. No extraneous information.

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 good conciseness, description omits return value (no output schema) and error conditions. For an 8-param mutation tool, more detail on results and edge cases is needed.

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 high (63% per context, but actually most params have descriptions). Description adds that inputs are inferred and selectors tracked, but doesn't elaborate on parameters like title or verifiable. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does most work.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates or updates a playbook from a successful trace, distinguishing it from siblings by specifying the inference of inputs/steps and use of selector cache. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and adds unique context.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies usage after a successful trace but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like browser_playbook_save or browser_playbook_seed_from_codebase. Only minimal context is given.

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