Skip to main content
Glama

Get personas

archivebox_get_personas
Read-onlyIdempotent

List browser personas—named cookie and profile sets used for captures—with paging controls to review or select capture profiles.

Instructions

GET /api/v1/personas/personas

List browser personas (named cookie/profile sets used for capture).

Args: limit: Page size. offset: Page offset. page: Page number.

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": "archivebox_get_personas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.6.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint path and explains what a persona represents, but does not add operational details such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or rate limits.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the resource name before the parameter list. The raw 'GET /api/v1/personas/personas' line is somewhat technical overhead, and the Args section is minimal, but there is little wasted prose.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain safety behavior. It describes the resource and all three parameters, though it leaves return shape and pagination semantics to inference since no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description does carry the burden of explaining parameters. It lists limit, offset, and page with basic meanings, but 'page: Page number' and 'offset: Page offset' are largely tautological and do not explain how page and offset interact or what bounds apply.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it lists browser personas, and explains that these are named cookie/profile sets used for capture. That is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or clarify its relationship to archivebox_sync_persona or archivebox_browser_session.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for browsing/persona discovery rather than creating, syncing, or acting on personas.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.