Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
self-healing-browser-mcp

self-healing-browser-mcp

by RAJUSHANIGARAPU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_get_text

Get visible text from a webpage element using locators like CSS, text, or label. Automatically recover when selectors change for reliable extraction.

Instructions

Return the visible text of the described element.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_get_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssNo
nameNo
roleNo
textNo
labelNo
testidNo
placeholderNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'visible text' without explaining behavior for hidden elements, multiple matches, or element not found. Key behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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?

The one-sentence description is too short for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. It sacrifices essential details for brevity, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (unspecified), the description fails to explain element selection, visibility criteria, return format, or error handling. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the 7 optional parameters (css, name, role, text, label, testid, placeholder), leaving their use and meaning entirely implied by names.

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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('visible text of the described element'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click or browser_fill, but could be more specific about what 'described element' entails.

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 tool vs alternatives such as browser_snapshot or browser_assert_visible. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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