Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MakersMCP

MakersMCP

by EminBudak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Check a web app manifest's screenshots

check_pwa_screenshots
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a web app manifest's listed screenshots against Chrome's rules for the richer install dialog without a browser, then reports pass status or fixes needed.

Instructions

Checks the screenshots a web app manifest lists against Chrome's rules for its richer install dialog, without a browser. Passes or lists what needs fixing. (easyscreenshotkit 0.1.1, on this machine.)

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": {
      "manifest": "<manifest>"
    },
    "name": "check_pwa_screenshots"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestYesThe manifest's file or address, or the site's address, like https://linear.app.
wait_secondsNoHow long to wait for the result before returning a job_id to wait on. 45 is safe for clients that stop a tool call after 60 seconds.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kitYes
toolYes
filesNo
folderNoWhere the kit saved its files.
job_idYes
passedNoFor checks: whether the check passed.
statusYes
exit_codeNo
last_lineNoWhat the kit was doing last.
expires_atNoWhen the download links stop working.
next_actionNo
elapsed_secondsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that — it performs validation without launching a browser, and it returns either a pass or a list of fixes — but it does not mention the asynchronous job_id path or that a network fetch of the manifest occurs. With an output schema present, the return-value omission is acceptable, making this a modest addition over structured data.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its standard, followed by the outcome shape. The trailing parenthetical "(easyscreenshotkit 0.1.1, on this machine.)" is the only element that does not directly help tool selection, though it does identify the implementation and locality.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only checker with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, standard, and outcome adequately; parameter details are fully handled by the schema. The main residual gap is the long-running/job_id flow, which is only surfaced inside the wait_seconds parameter description rather than the tool description.

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%: the manifest parameter already explains it accepts a file, an address, or a bare site address like https://linear.app, and wait_seconds documents the job_id fallback and the 60-second client timeout rationale. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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?

"Checks the screenshots a web app manifest lists against Chrome's rules for its richer install dialog" names a specific verb, a specific resource (manifest screenshots), and the exact standard being applied (Chrome rich-install criteria). The phrase "without a browser" plus the outcome clause ("Passes or lists what needs fixing") makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like take_screenshots or check_video, which capture or validate media rather than manifest metadata.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when this tool applies: validating a manifest's screenshots for rich install eligibility, and it notes no browser is needed, which matters for an agent deciding whether it can run this cheaply. It does not explicitly exclude cases (e.g. when to use take_screenshots instead) or state prerequisites such as requiring a reachable URL, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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