Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ZennoBrowser MCP Server

ZennoBrowser MCP Server

Official
by ZennoLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Deletes an extension.

delete_extension
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an extension from a specified preset and workspace by ID, removing unwanted browser add-ons from the antidetect browser.

Instructions

Deletes an extension.

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": {
      "presetId": "<presetId>",
      "extensionId": "<extensionId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_extension"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
presetIdYesTarget preset ID
extensionIdYesTarget extension ID
workspaceIdNoWorkspace identifier. -1 means the default workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond that – it does not say what is destroyed, whether the removal is permanent, or whether the extension is detached from all presets or only the referenced one.

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?

A single short sentence is not conciseness here – it is under-specification. There is no front-loaded substance because there is no substance at all.

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 destructive, three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain scope and irreversibility. It instead repeats the title, leaving the agent to rely entirely on annotations and schema.

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 presetId, extensionId and workspaceId all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the extension be removed from a preset first?), and no mention of alternatives such as delete_preset. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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