Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sommus-laptop

sommus-laptop

by Jashan-Mshadow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_page_links

Read-only

Extract a page's links and buttons as text -> url to know where to click, and filter by keyword like L3 or download.

Instructions

List a page's links and buttons as "text -> url". Use this instead of guessing where to click.

Args:
    tab: Tab number, window.tab, or text from its title or URL.
    contains: Optional filter, e.g. "L3" or "download".

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": {
      "tab": "<tab>"
    },
    "name": "list_page_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabYes
containsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds the output format. However, it says nothing about scope (whole page vs. visible region), frames/iframes handling, or result size, so behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation is thin.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; nothing is redundant. Minor formatting overhead from the Args section, but it earns its space given the zero schema coverage.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return as "text -> url" pairs. Both parameters are documented, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly, though scope and pagination limits remain unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and does so well: tab is explained as accepting a tab number, window.tab, or text from a title/URL, and contains is described as an optional filter with concrete examples ("L3", "download").

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a page's links and buttons) and even specifies the return shape ("text -> url"). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling click_page_link, since this tool reads the links rather than activating them.

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?

"Use this instead of guessing where to click" gives clear workflow context: discover links before clicking. It does not explicitly name click_page_link as the follow-up alternative or state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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