Skip to main content
Glama

wipeLogs

Clear all browser logs from memory to maintain privacy and optimize performance in browser monitoring applications.

Instructions

Wipe all browser logs from memory

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration and inline handler for 'wipeLogs'. Proxies a POST request to the browser connector server's /wipelogs endpoint to wipe logs and returns the server's message.
    server.tool("wipeLogs", "Wipe all browser logs from memory", async () => {
      return await withServerConnection(async () => {
        const response = await fetch(
          `http://${discoveredHost}:${discoveredPort}/wipelogs`,
          {
            method: "POST",
          }
        );
        const json = await response.json();
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: json.message,
            },
          ],
        };
      });
    });
  • The handler function for the wipeLogs tool, which calls the browser server's wipe logs endpoint.
    server.tool("wipeLogs", "Wipe all browser logs from memory", async () => {
      return await withServerConnection(async () => {
        const response = await fetch(
          `http://${discoveredHost}:${discoveredPort}/wipelogs`,
          {
            method: "POST",
          }
        );
        const json = await response.json();
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: json.message,
            },
          ],
        };
      });
    });

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 the action ('wipe') and target ('all browser logs from memory'), implying a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects performance, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant 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 the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error handling, or what happens after wiping (e.g., confirmation, side effects). For a mutation tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide safe usage.

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, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 verb ('wipe') and resource ('all browser logs from memory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'getConsoleLogs' or 'getNetworkLogs', but the destructive nature of 'wipe' versus the read-only 'get' operations provides implicit 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, consequences, or suggest when to use read-only sibling tools like 'getConsoleLogs' instead. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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