Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BrowserMCP Extended

BrowserMCP Extended

by NEO10111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_upload_file

Uploads a local file to an input[type=file] element by CSS selector, enabling automated form submissions and file selection in browser workflows.

Instructions

Upload a file to a file input element on the page

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "browser_upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesAbsolute or relative local path of the file to upload
selectorYesCSS selector of an input[type=file] element

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but omits behavior an agent needs: whether it validates the file path exists, whether it fires change/input events, whether it opens a dialog, or what errors occur on a non-file element. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Appropriately sized, though it doesn't use the space to add any of the behavioral detail the tool lacks.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and mutation-like behavior, it should say more about event triggering, path validation, and failure modes to be 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 description coverage is 100%, documenting both selector and filePath well. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Upload a file to a file input element on the page'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_type or browser_click, since uploading requires targeting an input[type=file]. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource specificity does the work.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., browser_type for non-file inputs, or browser_click to open a file chooser). The context is implied by 'file input element' but no when/when-not or preconditions are stated.

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