Run multiple browser_act steps in one call to complete multi-step tasks such as filling a form and clicking Save. Stops at the first failure and returns the final change set.
Run several browser_act steps in order in one call (e.g. fill a whole form and click Save). Stops at the first failure. Returns the final change set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | Each item has the same fields as browser_act |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing ordered execution, stopping at the first failure, and returning the final change set. It still leaves open whether partial changes persist on failure and does not mention permissions or other side-effect constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and an example, with no filler. Every sentence adds useful information about sequence, failure handling, or return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers the key operational behavior: batching, ordering, abort-on-failure, and return value. It could be more complete by clarifying partial-change persistence after failure, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, including the note that each step has the same fields as browser_act, so the schema already explains the single parameter. The description reinforces that steps are browser_act-like but adds no additional parameter constraints or formatting details beyond the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: run several browser_act steps in order in one call. It clearly implies batching versus single-step browser_act, but does not explicitly name the sibling as the alternative for single actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear usage context, exemplified by filling a whole form and clicking Save, which signals when a multi-step batch is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.