Chrome Debug MCP Server

by Rainmen-xia

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: click, hover, type_text handle different user interactions; navigate_to, scroll_up/down manage navigation; launch_browser, close_browser, resize_browser control browser state; get_page_content retrieves content. The descriptions clearly differentiate actions like click vs hover or scroll_up vs scroll_down.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern throughout (e.g., get_page_content, navigate_to). The verb-noun structure is mostly predictable, though some tools use simple verbs like click or hover without objects, which is a minor deviation from the full verb_noun pattern seen in others like resize_browser.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Chrome debugging server. Each tool earns its place by covering essential browser automation tasks: launching/closing, navigation, interaction (click, hover, type), scrolling, resizing, and content retrieval. This provides a balanced set without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core browser automation workflows well, including setup (launch_browser), navigation (navigate_to, scroll), interaction (click, hover, type_text), and teardown (close_browser). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for handling pop-ups, taking screenshots, or executing JavaScript, but agents can work around these with the provided tools for most debugging tasks.
Average 2.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this tool requires a browser session to be active, what happens if the target element isn't focused, whether it simulates keystrokes or pastes text, or any error conditions. For a browser automation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three Chinese characters. While this represents severe under-specification in terms of content, from a pure conciseness perspective, it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every character directly relates to the tool's function.
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 browser automation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest complex interaction scenarios, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behavioral characteristics it has, or what results to expect. This fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool selection.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' clearly documented in the schema as '要输入的文本内容' (text content to input). The description '输入文本内容' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 description '输入文本内容' (input text content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'type_text' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what resource the text is being typed into or provide any meaningful context about the action. While it's clear this involves typing text, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar text-input operations.
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?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (click, hover, navigate_to, etc.) that might be used in browser automation scenarios, but the description offers no context about whether this tool types into form fields, search boxes, or other UI elements, or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (click) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens after clicking (e.g., page navigation, element interaction), error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., requires an active browser session). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the click does (e.g., triggers UI events), potential side effects, or response format. For a tool that performs an interactive operation, more context is needed.
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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'coordinate' documented as '点击位置的坐标，格式为 'x,y''. The description implies coordinate usage but doesn't provide additional context like coordinate system origin or valid ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?
The description '在指定坐标位置点击' clearly states the action (click) and target (specified coordinate position). It uses a specific verb+resource pattern, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'hover' which might be similar. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., browser must be launched), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'hover'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('close browser connection') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is destructive (e.g., terminates processes, loses data), requires specific states, has side effects, or what happens post-execution. This leaves gaps for safe agent operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('关闭浏览器连接') that directly states the purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple action but potentially destructive), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what 'close' entails, return values, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in context with siblings like 'launch_browser'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy. No additional parameter context is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '关闭浏览器连接' (close browser connection) states a clear verb ('close') and resource ('browser connection'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'browser connection' entails compared to siblings like 'launch_browser' or 'resize_browser'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential alternatives, such as whether this terminates a session or just disconnects.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an active browser session from 'launch_browser'), exclusions, or related tools. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose: whether this requires an active browser session, if it waits for page loads, what happens on invalid coordinates, if it triggers hover events on elements, or any side effects. The description is functionally accurate but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('将鼠标悬停在') and immediately specifies the target. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address context like browser state requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes success. Siblings like 'launch_browser' and 'get_page_content' suggest a richer ecosystem that this description doesn't integrate with, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.
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%, with the parameter 'coordinate' fully documented in the schema as a string in 'x,y' format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying coordinate targeting. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.
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 ('将鼠标悬停在' - hover the mouse) and the target ('指定坐标位置' - specified coordinate position). It distinguishes from siblings like 'click' (which performs a click action) and 'type_text' (which inputs text). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the browser/UI context that siblings imply, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active browser session from 'launch_browser'), when hovering is appropriate versus clicking, or any coordination with other tools like 'get_page_content' for element identification. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '智能管理标签页（相同域名复用标签页）' which reveals the tab reuse behavior - a valuable behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose other important aspects: whether this opens a new browser if none exists, what happens with invalid URLs, authentication requirements, timeout behavior, or what constitutes successful navigation. For a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just one Chinese sentence with two clauses. The first clause states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context about tab management. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it mentions the tab reuse behavior, it doesn't cover: what happens if no browser is open, error conditions, timeout behavior, success indicators, or relationship to other browser tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively in various scenarios.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'url'. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't elaborate on URL format requirements, validation rules, or special handling. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 tool's purpose: '导航到指定URL' (navigate to specified URL) and adds '智能管理标签页（相同域名复用标签页）' (intelligently manage tabs - reuse tabs with same domain). This specifies both the action (navigate) and resource (URL/tabs), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'launch_browser' or 'get_page_content'.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While '智能管理标签页' hints at tab reuse behavior, it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'launch_browser' for initial navigation or how it relates to other navigation/interaction tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '调整浏览器窗口大小' implies a mutation action, it doesn't specify whether this requires a browser to be already launched, what happens if the browser isn't open, whether the size change is immediate or animated, or if there are any constraints on valid dimensions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('调整浏览器窗口大小') that directly communicates the core function without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every element earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation action with one parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about behavioral aspects, usage prerequisites, and expected outcomes, which would be important for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'size' clearly documented as '窗口大小，格式为 'width,height''. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides about parameters, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
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 '调整浏览器窗口大小' clearly states the verb ('调整' meaning adjust/resize) and resource ('浏览器窗口' meaning browser window), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'launch_browser' or 'close_browser' beyond the obvious action difference, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an active browser session), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'launch_browser' (which might create the window) or 'close_browser' (which terminates it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens if no page is loaded, whether scrolling is smooth or instant, if it respects page boundaries, or what visual/state changes occur. For a browser interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., success status, new page position), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'launch_browser' or 'navigate_to'. For a tool that modifies browser state, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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 ('向下滚动' - scroll down) and the target ('页面' - page) with specific scope ('一个视口高度' - one viewport height). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scroll_up' by direction, but doesn't fully differentiate from other navigation tools like 'navigate_to' beyond the scrolling action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for scrolling down a page, but doesn't specify when to choose this over 'scroll_up' or other navigation methods, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active browser session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('scroll up one viewport height') but lacks behavioral details such as whether it requires a loaded page, handles errors (e.g., if at the top), or interacts with page elements. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It explains the basic action but lacks context on prerequisites, error handling, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'launch_browser' must be used first). For a browser interaction tool, this is incomplete and could lead to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
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 ('向上滚动' meaning 'scroll up') and the resource ('页面' meaning 'page'), specifying it scrolls by one viewport height. It distinguishes from sibling 'scroll_down' by direction, though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other navigation tools like 'navigate_to' beyond the scroll action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for scrolling up a page, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active browser session), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'scroll_down' or 'navigate_to' for different navigation needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it returns raw HTML, handles dynamic content, requires page load completion, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., whether it returns a string or structured data) and behavioral context, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively in a browser automation scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('当前页面的HTML内容' meaning 'current page's HTML content'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_page_text' or 'get_page_screenshot' that might exist in other contexts, though none are listed among the provided siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'hover' or 'type_text'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions connecting to Chrome debugging ports and maintaining login state, which hints at session persistence and potential authentication needs. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, whether this is a one-time or reusable connection, or any rate limits—critical for a tool that establishes external connections.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's action and purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core function ('启动浏览器连接') and adds just enough context about Chrome debugging and login state, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (establishing external browser connections with login state persistence), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like what happens on success/failure, how the connection is managed, or what the agent can expect after launching (e.g., a session ID or confirmation). For a tool with potential side effects and no structured safety hints, this is inadequate.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'remote_host' documented as an optional Chrome host URL. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of default behavior if omitted, no explanation of why this parameter matters for login state). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 tool's purpose: '启动浏览器连接' (launch browser connection) and specifies it connects to Chrome debugging ports to maintain login state. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (browser/Chrome), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'close_browser' or 'navigate_to' beyond its unique connection-establishing function.
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 description implies usage context by mentioning '保持登录状态' (maintain login state), suggesting this tool is for establishing persistent sessions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites or comparisons to other browser-related siblings), leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chrome-debug-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rainmen-xia/chrome-debug-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rainmen-xia/chrome-debug-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chrome-debug-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rainmen-xia/chrome-debug-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rainmen-xia/chrome-debug-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Rainmen-xia/chrome-debug-mcp'

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