Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-browser

agent-browser

by EgiStr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

health_check

Verify that a Google session still works by loading a protected page and reporting the result. For Looker Studio URLs, it waits for the report's data call.

Instructions

Load a page that needs the Google session and report whether it still works.

For a Looker Studio URL it waits for the report's data call. Appends to /session_health.jsonl.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a side effect (appending to <out>/session_health.jsonl) and a timing behavior (waiting for the Looker Studio report data call), but is silent on failure semantics — what happens if the session is dead, whether it throws or records a failure entry.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the Looker Studio caveat plus output location following. No wasted prose, though the '<out>/session_health.jsonl' reference assumes context the agent may not have.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations the description should still cover failure behavior and the meaning of an omitted url. It covers purpose and side effects adequately but leaves the agent guessing on the null-url path.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never explains the single `url` parameter, including what happens when it is null (the default) — whether a default page is probed or the call is invalid. This is a meaningful gap for the only input.

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?

States a specific action: load a page that requires the Google session and report whether the session still works. That distinguishes it from siblings like browser_status or navigate, though the differentiation is only implied rather than named.

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?

Usage is implied by 'report whether it still works' — a session-validity probe — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as browser_status for general state or login_begin when the check fails.

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