Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
visual-inspector-mcp

visual-inspector-mcp

by MatinMHF
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Navigate

navigate

Load a URL into a persistent headless browser to enable visual inspection and interaction through subsequent clicks and screenshots.

Instructions

Load a URL in a persistent headless browser page (dev server, file://, or public site). Stays open for later click/screenshot calls.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to load
waitForSelectorNoWait for this selector before returning (SPAs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds transparency beyond annotations by noting the page persists for later interactions. Annotations do not mention persistence, so this is valuable. However, error handling or limitations (e.g., invalid URLs) are not disclosed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the core action first. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 description is adequate for this simple tool, covering the main behavior and persistence. It could be improved by mentioning return value or error scenarios, but given no output schema and low complexity, it is fairly complete.

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?

While schema descriptions cover both parameters (url and waitForSelector), the tool description adds context about valid URL types (dev server, file://, public site) and implies persistence, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to load a URL in a persistent headless browser page. It specifies the types of URLs supported (dev server, file://, public site) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click, screenshot, etc., which are subsequent actions.

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 context on when to use this tool, mentioning it stays open for later click/screenshot calls. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, missing some guidance for selection among siblings.

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