Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mochi

Mochi

by DevZonayed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_workflow_export

Export browser workflows as portable JSON files for version control and sharing, enabling workflow replay.

Instructions

Export a workflow as portable JSON (commit to your repo to share).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "browser_workflow_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
originNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the export is read-only, what permissions are needed, or if any state changes occur. The phrase 'portable JSON' suggests a non-destructive download, but this is not explicit.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence) but could include key parameter details without becoming verbose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and a hint about sharing via repo, but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context. More details are needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has two parameters (name and origin) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'name' or 'origin' mean, nor does it provide any context beyond the tool's purpose. With schema coverage absent, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action ('export a workflow') and the output format ('portable JSON'). It also provides a use case ('commit to your repo to share'), which distinguishes it from related tools like browser_workflow_get that may not export in a portable format.

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?

The description hints at usage ('commit to your repo to share') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_workflow_import or browser_playbook_export. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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