Skip to main content
Glama

browser.request_human_takeover

Request a human to take over the browser session when automation encounters a task requiring manual input. Provide a reason to guide the takeover.

Instructions

Ask for a human to take over the shared browser desktop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhat the human should do, shown to them.Manual review requested
session_idNoTarget session id, from browser.create_session or browser.list_sessions. Optional when exactly one session is live; observe and act tools create one when none is.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1
  2. Removedv1.4.2
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / maxLength
      Added value: +120
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
  4. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds no detail about what happens after the request: whether it blocks, pauses automation, notifies a human, or returns a confirmation. The description contributes minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is so brief that it omits important usage and behavioral context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool that requests human intervention, an agent would benefit from knowing whether the call is blocking, how the request is surfaced, and under what circumstances it should be used. With no output schema and no usage guidance, the description is not fully complete for an agent selecting or invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema richly documents both parameters, including the optional session_id fallback rule. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a clear, specific action: 'Ask for a human to take over the shared browser desktop.' This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which cover human takeover.

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?

There is no guidance on when to request a human takeover or when to prefer alternatives like browser.observe, browser.execute_action, or other automation tools. The intent is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when/when-not conditions are provided.

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