Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ZennoBrowser MCP Server

ZennoBrowser MCP Server

Official
by ZennoLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Updates the proxy configuration for multiple browser profiles.

bulk_update_profile_proxy

Update proxy settings for multiple browser profiles in one call. Assign a specific proxy server or distribute proxies from a container, with optional per-proxy limits.

Instructions

This method updates the proxy settings for one or more browser profiles at once. You can either set a specific proxy server or assign proxies from a container.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_update_profile_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesArray of profile IDs to update.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace identifier. -1 means the default workspace.
proxyServerIdNoThe proxy server identifier to assign. Pass null to remove proxy or use proxiesFromContainer.
proxyContainerIdNoContainer-based proxy assignment configuration. Pass null to use proxyServerId instead.
maxProfilesPerProxyNoMaximum number of profiles to assign per proxy when using container-based assignment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the dual-mode assignment behavior, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether running browsers are affected, partial-failure behavior across many profiles, or rate limits — meaningful gaps for a bulk mutation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the bulk scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely re-expresses what the schema already says about the two proxy modes, so it is useful framing rather than strictly additive, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the non-destructive read/write profile. However, for a 5-parameter bulk mutation the description omits what happens on invalid profile IDs, whether the operation is atomic across profiles, and whether the bulk update affects other proxy settings — leaving the agent with only the minimum viable picture.

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%, so the schema already documents profile IDs, workspace, proxyServerId, proxyContainerId, and maxProfilesPerProxy. The description restates the two proxy-assignment modes at a high level without adding format, precedence, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond what the schema's own descriptions say — the baseline 3 for full coverage is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (updates), resource (proxy settings), and scope (one or more browser profiles at once), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like bulk_update_profile_preset and bulk_update_profile_tags. It is clear, but it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

Usage is only implied: the two assignment modes ('set a specific proxy server' vs 'assign proxies from a container') hint at when each path applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance (e.g. update_proxy vs this bulk variant).

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