Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mochi

Mochi

by DevZonayed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_workflow_run

Replay a saved browser workflow with self-healing selectors and optional continuation on error. Returns per-step results including total and passed steps.

Instructions

Replay a saved workflow. Returns {status, stepsTotal, stepsPassed, results:[per-step envelope]}. Steps with cached selectors run first; on selector miss, falls back to role+name self-healing and updates the cache. Stops at first failure unless continueOnError=true.

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_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
originNo
continueOnErrorNo
stepDelayMsNoSleep between steps (helps flaky pages).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return envelope, self-healing mechanism (cached selectors, role/name fallback, cache update), and stop-on-failure behavior, providing good transparency for a run tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with return value, no fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure and core behavior. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., workflow existence) but is otherwise complete for a run tool.

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 only 25% (stepDelayMs documented); the description adds context for continueOnError but does not explain the required 'name' or 'origin' parameter, marginally compensating for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'replay' and identifies the resource as a 'saved workflow', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_workflow_list (list workflows) or browser_playbook_run (run playbook).

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 implies when to use (replay a workflow) and mentions a key option (continueOnError), but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like browser_playbook_run or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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