Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ZennoBrowser MCP Server

ZennoBrowser MCP Server

Official
by ZennoLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Retrieves the browser version.

get_browser_version
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the current browser engine version to verify compatibility, audit builds, or confirm which engine version ZennoBrowser instances are using.

Instructions

This method returns the current version of the browser engine.

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": "get_browser_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the full safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations - no return format, no auth or rate-limit context - and effectively restates the title.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a trivially simple no-parameter read.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally state what is returned (bare version string vs structured object) and how it relates to get_product_version. The safety and simplicity are covered by annotations, so the gap is modest but real.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 for a no-param tool.

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 names a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('the current version of the browser engine'), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the close sibling get_product_version, which could plausibly be confused with a browser-engine version lookup.

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, and no mention of the near-identical sibling get_product_version. Usage is only implied by the tool 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