Execute an inline YAML recipe to drive a headless Firefox browser: navigate, fill and submit forms, click, hover, scroll, extract text, copy links, download files, and capture screenshots or JSON.
Execute an inline YAML recipe string (agent-generated). Args mirror recipe file format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_dir | No | ||
| recipe_yaml | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about side effects of executing an arbitrary YAML recipe, required permissions, sandboxing, error behavior, or idempotency. '(agent-generated)' is the only provenance hint, which is thin for an execution tool that runs caller-supplied content.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though the terseness arguably costs clarity rather than earning it.
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 an executor of arbitrary caller-supplied YAML with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is under-specified. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input contract and safety/behavior profile are missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. 'Args mirror recipe file format' gestures at recipe_yaml but never explains the YAML structure, required keys, or what output_dir does or where files land. Both parameters remain effectively undocumented.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Execute an inline YAML recipe string.' The parenthetical '(agent-generated)' adds a hint about provenance. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling play_recipe, so the agent must infer that 'inline' is what distinguishes this tool from the file-based one.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling play_recipe. 'Inline YAML recipe string' implicitly suggests use when no recipe file exists, but the agent is left to infer that condition rather than being told it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.