Skip to main content
Glama
NeoXider

Web Search Neo

by NeoXider
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

web_info

Read the current state of the web browser and application environment. Retrieve detailed information including page text, network traffic, console logs, and operational status for thorough analysis.

Instructions

Read the contract, the page, the console, the network, or search/browser state.

Called with no arguments it returns the whole contract, including recipes and common mistakes, so no external skill file is needed. Every result (dict payloads) also carries the current local date/time and UTC-offset region under the top-level now key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNoRun this whole call on another computer: a node name from web_info topic 'nodes', or its IP. Omit for this computer.
topicNocapabilities
paramsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.28.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / node
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Run this whole call on another computer: a node name from web_info topic 'nodes', or its IP. Omit for this computer.",
+  "title": "Node"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "capabilities",
-  "action_schema",
-  "skill",
-  "actions",
-  "search_status",
-  "browser_status",
-  "browser_tabs",
-  "page_outline",
-  "page_text",
-  "element_text",
-  "find",
-  "page_elements",
-  "console",
-  "network",
-  "network_body",
-  "execute_js",
-  "game_probe",
-  "screenshot"
-]New value: +[
+  "capabilities",
+  "action_schema",
+  "skill",
+  "actions",
+  "search_status",
+  "browser_status",
+  "browser_tabs",
+  "page_outline",
+  "page_text",
+  "element_text",
+  "find",
+  "page_elements",
+  "console",
+  "network",
+  "network_body",
+  "execute_js",
+  "game_probe",
+  "screen_state",
+  "screenshot",
+  "nodes"
+]
  2. First observedv1.15.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: the no-arg behavior and that every dict result carries a `now` key with local date/time and UTC-offset region, plus the `node` parameter's cross-machine execution. It omits that topics such as execute_js perform code execution in the page rather than a pure read, and says nothing about permissions, side effects, or failure behavior for remote nodes.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the no-arg fallback and the `now` key each earn their place. Minor cost from vague phrasing ('the contract') that spends words without adding clarity.

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 single tool multiplexing 20 topics with an open `params` object and no output schema, the description covers the zero-arg case and the shared `now` key but leaves the per-topic parameter contract and result shapes undocumented. An agent can call it with no arguments, but cannot confidently invoke most topics from this text alone.

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 only 33%: `node` is documented in the schema and the description echoes cross-machine intent, but `topic`'s 20 enum values and especially the free-form `params` object have no description anywhere. The description never explains how `params` is shaped per topic, which is the hardest part of invoking this tool correctly, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resources it covers (contract, page, console, network, search/browser state), which matches the topic enum well. It is distinguishable from the act-oriented sibling web_action by being framed as a read surface, though it never names that sibling explicitly and the term 'the contract' is unexplained jargon.

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 no-argument case is handled explicitly and usefully ('returns the whole contract, including recipes and common mistakes, so no external skill file is needed'), which is real routing guidance. However, it never states when to call web_info versus web_action, nor does it explain which topic to pick for which question — usage is implied by the resource list only.

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