wcc

by Maaa2005

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role in the session lifecycle: opening, inspecting, listing, executing, retrieving results, and closing. There is no overlap in purpose; even get_execution_result and execute_capability differ in that one runs a capability and the other fetches a stored result.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (open_session, inspect_page, list_capabilities, etc.). The verbs are clear and the nouns correspond to the domain entities, making the set highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of session-based browser automation. Each tool is necessary and covers a distinct step in the workflow, neither too few nor too many.
Completeness4/5
The lifecycle from opening a session through inspection, capability execution, result retrieval, and closing is fully covered. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit navigation tool to change the URL within an open session, though capabilities may inherently handle page changes.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 47 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a caching mechanism ('Reuses a stored template... compiles a new one only when none does') and notes it returns compiler refusals, which are useful behavioral details. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, keeping this from a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by one behavioral detail. No redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes meaning.
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 likely covers return values, but the description omits parameter semantics and explicit usage context. It provides a reasonable overview but lacks details about session requirements and refresh behavior, leaving the tool incompletely specified for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain session_id or refresh at all. The agent cannot infer the meaning or effect of the refresh parameter from the description, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the current page' and return capabilities, entities, and compiler refusals. The verb 'read' plus the resource 'current page' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_capabilities (global list) and execute_capability.
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?
The description implies usage (reading the current page within a session) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_capabilities. No exclusions or prerequises are mentioned, so the guidance is present only by implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses a meaningful access-control trait: only the originating session can read the result. This goes beyond what the schema or name conveys. It does not mention other behaviors like result retention or errors, but given the output schema covers return format, this is decent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. The security constraint is essential and concisely stated.
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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema and 2 self-explanatory parameters, the description provides the essential context: what it retrieves and who can access it. It lacks error-condition details, but these are secondary given the output schema. It is reasonably complete for its complexity.
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?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not directly explain the purpose or format of session_id and execution_id, though the sentence about session access hints at session_id's role. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('stored execution result'), and the 'stored' qualifier distinguishes this from execute_capability, which likely runs an execution. The purpose is immediately obvious.
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?
The description implies this should be used after an execution has been stored and when you need to fetch that result, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., execute_capability) or provide when/when-not guidance. The session restriction is a usage constraint but not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that URL policy is enforced before returning the session and that the tool reports the landing page. However, it lacks additional context about resource cleanup or failure modes beyond URL refusal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and result; the second adds a key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key policy. However, it doesn't explain session lifecycle expectations (e.g., that close_session is needed), but this is a minor gap.
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?
The input schema provides only the property name 'url' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely restates the concept of opening a URL without adding format constraints, accepted schemes, or examples, so it does not compensate for the missing schema detail.
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 uses the specific verb 'Open' with the resource 'browser session' and URL, and explains the reporting behavior. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like close_session and inspect_page by describing the opening action.
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 clearly indicates this tool is used to start a browser session at a given URL, implying the entry point before other operations. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that execution may modify the page (what changed on the page) and that low-risk capabilities are refused with a reason. This goes beyond the schema, but it doesn't cover all failure modes (e.g., invalid session) or side effects beyond page changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action and return value. It lists the result components efficiently and adds the risk restriction without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
Given the output schema and simple parameter set, the description provides sufficient context for a basic execution flow: run a capability, receive detailed results, and be aware of risk-based refusal. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or when to use get_execution_result, but it is not critically incomplete.
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 adds minimal parameter meaning. It refers to a 'bound capability' but does not explain the 'arguments' parameter or how it relates to the capability. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's function ('Run one bound capability') and specifies the outcome ('return the complete result'), including steps, page changes, verification, and entities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_execution_result (which retrieves results) and list_capabilities (which lists capabilities).
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 a clear usage context: to execute a capability and receive a complete result. It also includes an exclusionary rule ('Only low-risk capabilities execute; anything else is refused'), which helps the agent know when execution will not work. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_execution_result for retrieving past results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses idempotency (closing an already-closed session is not an error) and indicates a side effect ('retire its capabilities'). It does not mention return format or pending operations, but the output schema exists to cover that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotency note is a relevant addition that earns its place.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (one parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema. The description covers core purpose and a key behavioral edge case. It could mention prerequisites or side effects more explicitly, but for this scope it is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain session_id, but the phrase 'Close a session' makes it clear that this parameter identifies the session to close. For a single, self-explanatory parameter, this is minimally sufficient but lacks explicit format or constraints.
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 uses the specific verb 'close' and identifies the resource ('a session'). It also clarifies an edge case (closing an already-closed session is not an error), which further defines the operation's scope. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool open_session.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to close a session and retire its capabilities) and provides a behavioral usage note that closing an already-closed session is safe. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral dependency: the tool reports inspections already performed ('Inspect the page first; this reports what that inspection found'), and it frames filtering as optional. It does not disclose error conditions, but for a list operation this is adequate given the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and both sentences add value: one states the function and filtering, the other the prerequisite dependency. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the output schema exists, return values are handled elsewhere. The description covers the core function, filtering options, and the inspection prerequisite. It does not explain session_id semantics or failure modes, but for a listing tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.
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 property descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions filtering by 'category' and 'maximum risk level,' mapping to the category and max_risk parameters. However, session_id is never mentioned, leaving its purpose implicit only through the phrase 'in this session.' Partial compensation.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'capabilities' and clarifies scope as 'already bound in this session.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like execute_capability and inspect_page by stating it reports what inspection found rather than performing or executing anything.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Inspect the page first; this reports what that inspection found.' This implies the proper sequencing after inspect_page and before execution. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![web-capability-compiler MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Maaa2005/web-capability-compiler/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Maaa2005/web-capability-compiler)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![web-capability-compiler MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Maaa2005/web-capability-compiler/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Maaa2005/web-capability-compiler)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Maaa2005/web-capability-compiler'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server