Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Browser Runtime MCP

Browser Runtime MCP

by MakiDevelop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_console_logs

Fetch browser console logs with filters for level and URL, enabling real-time debugging of runtime errors and warnings.

Instructions

取得瀏覽器 console 輸出（error / warn / log 三個等級）。

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": "get_console_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelNo篩選等級：error / warn / log / all（預設 all）all
limitNo回傳筆數上限，預設 50
url_filterNo只回傳包含此子字串的 URL 的 log

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'get console output' without disclosing return format, ordering, buffering behavior, or whether reading the logs clears them. The sibling clear_buffers suggests a buffer relationship, but this is not addressed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. All words are relevant, and it is properly front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the presence of siblings like clear_buffers and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what the returned logs look like, whether they are cumulative, or if the call has side effects on the buffer. This leaves important gaps for an agent selecting 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (level, limit, url_filter) with descriptions and defaults, so the schema provides full parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline 3.

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 retrieves browser console output with three log levels (error/warn/log). This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling get_browser_errors by covering all console levels, not just errors.

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 the tool is for fetching console logs but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_browser_errors or how it relates to clear_buffers. Usage context is only implied through the tool's name and description.

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