Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ZennoBrowser MCP Server

ZennoBrowser MCP Server

Official
by ZennoLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Retrieves detailed information about a specific Browser Profile

get_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed information for a specific browser profile using its unique ID and optional workspace.

Instructions

Retrieves detailed information about a specific Browser Profile

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": {
      "profileId": "<profileId>"
    },
    "name": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileIdYesThe unique identifier of the profile to retrieve.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace identifier. -1 means the default workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
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, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that—no note on what 'detailed information' includes, whether a missing profile errors, or any rate/permission context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy—the sentence carries no information beyond the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what is returned; 'detailed information' is too vague for an agent to know the shape of the response. For a read tool with no return-value documentation, this leaves a real gap.

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 only two parameters, both fully documented in-schema (profileId as UUID, workspaceId defaulting to -1). The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_profiles for a single lookup, or how it relates to update_profile/delete_profile. No prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profileId or workspace context) are mentioned.

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