Skip to main content
Glama

pool_test

Test asynchronous responses within the browser pool MCP server to verify functionality and ensure reliable operation of concurrent, isolated Playwright browser sessions.

Instructions

Test async response

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'pool_test' tool, which logs the input, simulates an asynchronous delay, and returns a formatted response.
    server.tool('pool_test', 'Test async response', { message: z.string() },
      async (args) => {
        log(`[pool_test] called with: ${JSON.stringify(args)}`);
        // Simulate async operation
        await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 100));
        const response = {
          content: [{
            type: 'text',
            text: `Received: ${args.message}`
          }]
        };
        log(`[pool_test] returning: ${JSON.stringify(response)}`);
        return response;
Behavior1/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a safe read-only probe or if it mutates pool state, what the return value contains, or how the 'message' parameter affects the test behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While only three words, this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. No information is front-loaded; the fragment provides minimal actionable context for an LLM to decide invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

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 annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's role and the test's purpose. It fails entirely, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description completely omits the 'message' parameter. No indication of expected format, purpose, or whether this message gets logged, echoed, or used as a payload for the async test.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The phrase 'Test async response' is vague and lacks resource specificity. It does not clarify what 'pool' refers to (likely a connection/worker pool given the sibling 'pool_status'), nor what aspect of async responses is being tested. It barely distinguishes from browser automation siblings but fails to differentiate from 'pool_status'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to invoke this tool versus 'pool_status' or under what conditions async testing is needed. No prerequisites, sequencing, or failure modes are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/OMGEverdo/browser-pool-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server