Leapfrog MCP
Server Quality Checklist
- Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'profile_list' and 'session_list_profiles' appear to overlap significantly (both list saved profiles), and the 'act'/'execute'/'batch_actions' trio requires careful reading to distinguish (single interaction vs. arbitrary script vs. sequential batch). Domain-specific prefixes (session_, profile_, tab_) help but don't eliminate all ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5Naming uses functional prefixes (session_, profile_, api_, network_) which aids organization, but suffix patterns are inconsistent: some use verbs (session_create), some nouns (console_log), and some are just verbs (act, execute, navigate). Mix of snake_case throughout, but 'tabs_list' uses plural while 'tab_close' and 'tab_switch' use singular, showing lack of strict convention.
Tool Count2/5With 33 tools, this significantly exceeds the threshold where count becomes burdensome (25+). While the domain (browser automation) is complex, the sheer volume makes tool selection difficult for agents, and several tools feel like they could be consolidated (e.g., the various session export tools, profile listing redundancies).
Completeness3/5The surface covers most browser automation needs (navigation, extraction, network interception, scripting), but has notable lifecycle gaps: 'session_create' exists with pool limits (15 sessions), yet there's no 'session_close' or 'session_delete' to manually free resources. Similarly, 'tab_close' and 'tab_switch' exist but 'tab_create'/'tab_open' is missing, forcing workarounds via 'act'.
Average 4/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.6.1
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
- This server provides 36 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It specifies 'all' (scope) and 'authentication' (type), but lacks details on return format, session scoping behavior, or whether these profiles persist across sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at five words in a single sentence. While efficient, this brevity comes at the cost of the sibling differentiation needed for proper tool selection in a multi-profile-tool environment.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description minimally explains the operation. However, it lacks critical context regarding how this differs from 'profile_list' and what constitutes a 'saved' profile in the session context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per evaluation rules. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameters, though it could have elaborated on what 'saved authentication profiles' implies for the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (saved authentication profiles), but fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'profile_list', which could cause selection errors when both are available.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'profile_list' or other profile-related tools, nor any prerequisites regarding session context or authentication state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly documents the return format (base64 inline) and the optional disk-saving behavior, which is critical given no output schema exists. However, it omits whether this blocks until page is stable, the image format (PNG/JPEG), and whether the operation modifies any state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three efficient sentences with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return value documentation, then optional side-effect (savePath). Every sentence earns its place in guiding tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage and 4 parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. The explanation of the base64 return compensates for the missing output schema. However, gaps remain regarding image format specifics, page stability waiting behavior, and safety guarantees (read-only nature) that annotations would typically provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by linking 'savePath' to the disk-saving functionality ('Optionally save to disk with savePath'), reinforcing the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's literal description. No additional semantic context is provided for 'selector' or 'fullPage' nuances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Capture a screenshot') and resource ('current page'), and specifies the output format (base64 inline). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'snapshot' (likely a DOM snapshot), which could cause selection confusion in browser automation contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use 'fullPage' versus 'selector', when to specify 'savePath' versus relying on inline returns, or when to choose this over 'snapshot'. The description states what parameters exist but not the decision criteria for using them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses that capture starts automatically and enumerates the available log levels. However, it omits critical behavioral details such as message retention duration, buffer limits, whether retrieval is destructive (clears the log), or the return format structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three efficient sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (viewing console messages), followed by behavioral setup (auto-capture), and ends with practical usage guidance (filter usage). Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality. However, for a debugging tool with no annotations, it should disclose behavioral traits like persistence or side effects to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both sessionId and level are documented in the schema). The description reinforces the level parameter's purpose by mentioning the filter use case, but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'View' with the resource 'browser console messages' and explicitly lists the supported log levels (log, warn, error, info, debug). While it clearly defines the domain, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool network_log, though the distinction is implied by the message types listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides useful operational context stating that 'Console capture starts automatically when a session is created,' which establishes prerequisites. It also gives practical advice to 'Use level filter to focus on errors or warnings.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like network_log or screenshot for debugging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully explains the five extraction types and element targeting, but omits critical behavioral details: it does not disclose potential side effects of JavaScript evaluation (type='js'), nor does it describe the return value format or extraction limits beyond maxChars.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific type options and targeting instructions. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for identifying the tool's function, but incomplete given the lack of output schema and annotations. The description fails to specify what data structure is returned (string? JSON?) and omits safety considerations for arbitrary JavaScript execution, which are important for a 5-parameter extraction tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds significant semantic value by elaborating on the enum values for 'type' (e.g., 'visible text', 'markup') and clarifying the 'target' parameter's purpose for 'element-specific extraction', exceeding the baseline schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb (extract) and resource (data from the page). Effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'snapshot' tool by noting it operates 'without a full snapshot', signaling it's a lighter, targeted alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage guidance by contrasting with 'snapshot', but lacks explicit 'when to use vs when not to use' rules. Critically, it fails to clarify when to use the 'js' type versus the sibling 'execute' tool, which also runs JavaScript.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially succeeds by mentioning 'all its data' which implies destructive scope, but it lacks explicit warnings about permanence, irreversibility, or side effects on active browser sessions using that profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the action verb, includes zero redundancy, and every phrase ('saved persistent', 'and all its data') earns its place by distinguishing scope and storage type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single string parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the deletion scope. However, for a destructive operation without annotations, it could have explicitly noted the permanent nature of the deletion to achieve full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that the name refers to a 'persistent browser profile' rather than a temporary session or user profile, reinforcing the parameter's domain context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('saved persistent browser profile') and scope ('and all its data'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like profile_list (read) and profile_import_from_chrome (create/import) by emphasizing the destructive removal of persistent storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as checking profile existence via profile_list or warn against deleting active session profiles. It simply states the action without contextual usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description explains data capture source ('XHR/fetch traffic') and classification behavior, adding context beyond the name. However, omits safety profile (read-only/destructive), session requirements, or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('List JSON APIs...'), followed by provenance ('Captured automatically...') and classification details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Moderate completeness for a discovery tool. Covers data source and classification logic well. However, lacks output description (no output schema exists) and omits behavioral safety details that annotations would typically provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33% (only minConfidence described). Description compensates partially by enumerating classification categories matching the 'category' enum, adding semantic meaning. However, fails to explain 'sessionId' context or elaborate on 'minConfidence' beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action 'List JSON APIs' and resource scope 'the page has called'. 'XHR/fetch traffic' distinguishes from sibling network_log (which captures all traffic) and api_export (which exports rather than lists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. Classification categories provide implicit usage context for the 'category' filter but lacks explicit guidance on choosing this over network_log or api_export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite workflow (traffic capture must precede export) but omits critical behavioral details: whether the export consumes/resets the traffic log, the output format (JSON vs YAML), file handling behavior, or error conditions when no traffic exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose; the second provides critical workflow guidance. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the most important information (what it does) before the how/when.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core workflow but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't clarify the return value format, pagination behavior for large specs, or side effects on the session state. Complete enough for basic usage but lacks depth for edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (title and includeTracking are described; required parameter sessionId is not). The description adds no clarification for sessionId or semantic context for the other parameters, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for medium coverage where the description doesn't compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific output (OpenAPI v3 spec) and source material (observed API traffic) with precise verbs. It references the prerequisite navigation step, implicitly distinguishing this from static analysis tools like `api_discover`. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like `session_export`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Navigate pages first to capture traffic, then export.' This clearly establishes the prerequisite (navigate) and sequencing required for successful use. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose return format, pagination behavior (despite 'limit' parameter existing), or whether this is read-only/safe. 'Recall' implies non-destructive, but explicit behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with verb 'Recall'. Every word earns its place - first sentence states purpose, second states specific use case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 simple parameters and no annotations/output schema, description adequately covers core function but gaps remain. Should describe what 'actions' entails (browser events? API calls?) and return format since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (limit documented, sessionId not). Description mentions 'this session' which implicitly contextualizes sessionId, but provides no explicit parameter guidance. Baseline 3 appropriate since it adds minimal semantic value beyond incomplete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Recall' with clear resource 'actions performed in this session'. Effectively distinguishes from action-performing siblings (act, execute, navigate) and export/replay variants by positioning this as a retrieval/history tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific when-to-use scenario ('after context window compression to recover lost context'), which is highly actionable. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives (e.g., session_replay vs session_memory), but the context window scenario clearly signals retrieval intent over other session tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Adds valuable behavioral context about token reduction and output format (@eN refs). However, fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs mutation) or whether this modifies page state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three efficient sentences with purpose front-loaded. Sentence 2 combines usage timing and parameter scoping; sentence 3 adds selector examples. Slight redundancy between sentences 2 and 3 regarding selector, but overall tight structure with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has medium complexity (3 params, no annotations, no output schema). Description covers core purpose and key parameter usage but leaves gaps: no explicit description of return value structure beyond '@eN refs' hint, and missing behavioral safety disclosure required given zero annotation coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds significant value for 'selector' parameter: explains purpose (scope to region), benefit (dramatically reduce tokens), and concrete examples ('form', '#results'). Does not address sessionId or maxChars, but schema covers these adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Re-snapshot') and resource ('current page') and unique output format ('@eN refs'). Distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'act' tool. Slight deduction because 'Re-snapshot' assumes prior context about what snapshots are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('after act when you need to re-orient') and provides clear contextual trigger. Names sibling tool 'act' specifically. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but usage pattern is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It correctly states the return value (fresh snapshot) and implies blocking behavior, but fails to disclose timeout failure behavior (error thrown or silent return?), polling frequency, or resource consumption during wait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads purpose and lists capabilities; second sentence explains return value. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, description adequately covers the conceptual model (wait conditions) and return format. Missing only timeout failure behavior and explicit sibling differentiation to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds significant value by mapping abstract enum values ('element', 'text', 'js') to concrete semantics ('element visible', 'text appears', 'JS expression truthy'), clarifying what each condition type actually waits for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Wait' and resource 'condition', with specific scope defined by listing the five supported condition types (element visible, text appears, etc.). Mentions return value (fresh snapshot) which implicitly distinguishes from sibling wait_for_human, though explicit comparison is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies synchronization use case ('before proceeding') by listing condition types, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus polling snapshot manually or versus wait_for_human, and doesn't state prerequisites like needing an active session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, description carries full burden and discloses critical behavior: 'Executes each step directly against the browser' signals real side-effects, and explains the parameter substitution mechanism. Could further clarify state mutation risks or replay fidelity limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences with zero waste: purpose first, execution model second, parameter usage third, error handling fourth. Every clause earns its place; technical details are appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core mechanics (replay execution, parameterization, error handling) but omits safety warnings about browser state modification and lacks output description. For a 4-param complex execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), description adds valuable semantic context: explains placeholder substitution syntax {{}} for 'params' object, and clarifies behavioral meaning of 'skip' (continue past failures) beyond the enum labels in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (replay) and target (recording in current session) clearly. Distinguishes from session_create/export siblings by specifying 'current session' and 'executes steps', though could explicitly contrast with manual execution tools like 'act'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implicit usage guidance through parameter override syntax ({{placeholder}}) and error handling hints (onError='skip'), but lacks explicit 'when to use this vs manual execution or session_export' guidance. Sibling relationships are not articulated in description text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the output structure (index, URL, title, active status) compensating for the missing output schema, and reveals the important behavioral trait that new tabs/popups are automatically tracked. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or error conditions, but the listing nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description contains three sentences that are all front-loaded with value: purpose declaration, output field disclosure, and behavioral tracking note. There is no redundant text, though the second sentence could arguably be slightly more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a simple single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by detailing the return fields (index, URL, title, active) and explaining the auto-tracking behavior. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool and understand its results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (sessionId is documented as 'Session ID'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, but given the high schema coverage and the parameter's self-evident nature, no additional semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List all open tabs in a session' with a clear verb (list), resource (tabs), and scope (session). It further distinguishes itself from siblings like tab_close or tab_switch by specifying it 'Shows index, URL, title, and which tab is active'—clearly indicating this is a read-only inspection tool rather than a manipulation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by noting that 'New tabs (popups, OAuth windows) are automatically tracked,' suggesting when the tool is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus tab_switch or session_list_profiles, or prerequisites for the sessionId parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses output format (compact snapshot), ref system mechanics, and size constraints. However, omits behavioral details like error handling on invalid URLs, navigation lifecycle events, or state mutation characteristics (though 'waitUntil' parameter implies some lifecycle).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core function (navigate + snapshot), followed by usage integration (act tool), and comparative value proposition (token efficiency).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but description adequately covers return value format (compact snapshot, refs, token size) and sibling integration. Absence of error behavior descriptions or explicit navigation side-effects prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics (parameters are self-evident in schema), but adds crucial context about the @eN reference system which clarifies the session/output relationship.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific action ('Navigate to a URL'), output type ('compact accessibility snapshot'), and unique identifier system ('@eN refs'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'snapshot' via the token size comparison (200-500 vs 15,000).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly identifies integration pattern with sibling 'act' tool ('Refs... can be passed directly to the act tool'). Implicitly guides selection via token size comparison vs Playwright MCP alternative. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite statements (e.g., session requirements).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions actions (block, mock, log) but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., that blocking prevents requests from completing, mocking replaces real responses) or rule persistence/scope beyond the sessionId parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: establishes purpose, lists capabilities with examples, and provides specific operational syntax. Information is front-loaded and dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a 7-parameter mutation tool with complete schema coverage. Covers all actions and removal workflow. Minor gap: doesn't clarify success/failure behavior or explicitly note thaturlPatternis conditionally required (though schema documents this).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining the semantic relationship betweenaction='remove'andruleId, and provides concrete usage examples (blocking ads/trackers) that contextualize theurlPatternparameter without merely repeating schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verbs (Add/remove, Block, mock, log) and clearly identifies the resource (network intercept rules, requests, traffic). Distinguishes from siblingnetwork_logby emphasizing interception capabilities (blocking, mocking) not just passive logging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit syntax guidance for removal ('Use action='remove' with ruleId'), but lacks broader when-to-use guidance versus alternativenetwork_logand doesn't clarify prerequisites for different actions (e.g., when blocking is appropriate vs logging).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (method, status, URL, size, timing) and the auto-start behavior. However, it omits read-only safety confirmation, return format details, volume limits, or pagination behavior that would be critical given zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four efficiently structured sentences with zero waste: purpose (View...), output fields (Shows...), filtering (Filter by...), and prerequisites (Network capture starts...). Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriately complete for a 6-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage. Covers viewing scope, returned fields, filtering options, and session lifecycle. Lacking output format specification (JSON structure, array vs object) which would be helpful given no output_schema exists, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by explicitly mapping parameters to filtering capabilities ('Filter by URL pattern, method, status range, or content-type'), clarifying that statusMin/statusMax function as a range and that these parameters act as filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('View') + resource ('captured HTTP requests/responses') plus scope ('for a session'). The mention of 'viewing' vs the sibling 'network_intercept' (which implies interception/modification) 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides important prerequisite context that 'Network capture starts automatically when a session is created,' informing the user that manual activation isn't required. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling 'network_intercept' or other session tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable detail that output includes 'auth status', but omits read-only safety confirmation, pagination behavior, or return format structure that would be essential for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action ('List') and specific modifier ('persistent'), followed by the specific data attribute returned ('auth status').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-input tool, description adequately covers intent by mentioning 'auth status'. However, lacks output schema and could explicitly confirm it returns an array/list structure or describe what constitutes 'saved' profiles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present. Per scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. Description appropriately acknowledges this is a parameterless list operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'List' with specific resource 'saved persistent browser profiles' and detail 'auth status'. The term 'persistent' effectively distinguishes this from sibling 'session_list_profiles' (session-scoped vs persistent storage).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through 'persistent' keyword distinguishing from session-based alternatives, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or when to prefer over 'session_list_profiles' or 'profile_import_from_chrome'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the runtime requirement (LEAP_TRACE=true), the output format (Playwright trace), and the consumption method (view at trace.playwright.dev with detailed timeline). It does not mention side effects or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second gives prerequisites, and the third explains output consumption. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (trace file) and how to use it (viewing URL). Given the single parameter and no complex annotations, this is sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (sessionId). The description implicitly contextualizes this parameter by mentioning 'for a session,' but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (export), the exact resource type (Playwright trace file), and the target (session). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'session_export' (generic) and 'session_replay' (internal playback) by specifying the Playwright format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires LEAP_TRACE=true'), which helps determine when the tool is available. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling alternatives like 'session_export' or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Critical disclosure: 'equivalent to arbitrary code execution' with environment variable to disable (LEAP_ALLOW_EXECUTE=false). Misses error handling behavior and return value format, but covers the essential security profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, zero waste: functionality, efficiency value, use-case guidance, security warning. Front-loaded with specific action, appropriately dense for a high-risk tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
High-complexity tool (arbitrary code execution) with no annotations or output schema. Description covers critical security aspect and use-case justification, but omits return value structure, error propagation behavior, and sessionId semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (script and timeout described, sessionId bare). Description adds context that script has access to '{ page, context }' but does not compensate for undocumented sessionId or mention timeout behavior. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema does most work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb-resource 'Run a Playwright script' plus explicit scope '{ page, context }'. Strong differentiation from granular siblings (act, navigate, etc.) by stating it replaces '5-20 sequential MCP round trips'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use for complex flows with conditional logic, loops, error handling', clearly positioning against simple atomic actions. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, though implied by the efficiency comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Strong disclosure given zero annotations. Explains content filtering ('mutating actions' vs extracts controlled by keepExtracts), transformation logic ('@eN refs resolved to stable selectors'), and output variations. Missing explicit safety declaration (though 'export' implies read-only).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose ('Export...'), followed by technical specification ('Creates...'), and specific usage instruction ('Use format...'). Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Compensates well for missing output schema by describing the generated script content (JSON, @eN resolution, mutating actions). Covers the 4 parameters adequately. Would benefit from mentioning error cases (invalid sessionId).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds significant value: links 'format' parameter to 'execute' tool compatibility, and explains that 'keepExtracts' relates to including non-mutating steps, clarifying the default behavior implied by sentence 2.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb-object structure ('Export session action history') and specifies the artifact created ('JSON script', 'replayable recording'). Technical details ('@eN refs resolved to stable selectors') precisely define the scope. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'session_export_trace'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance for the 'format' parameter ('Use format='playwright' to get a Playwright JS script compatible with the execute tool'), linking it to a specific sibling tool. However, lacks explicit comparison to 'session_export_trace' for when to use which export format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses specific health checks performed ('browser connected, page responsive'). Missing safety profile (read-only implied but not stated), return format, error conditions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three efficient sentences. Main purpose front-loaded. Each fragment earns its place: health criteria, parameter behavior, and usage context. No redundancy or waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low complexity (1 optional param, simple operation) but lacks output schema. Description omits return value structure (boolean? status object? error codes?), which is needed given no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds reinforcement of the bulk-check behavior: 'Omit sessionId to check all sessions' clarifies the optional parameter's effect better than schema's terse 'Omit to check all'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Check' + resource 'session' + scope 'healthy (browser connected, page responsive)'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like session_create (creates), act (performs actions), or pool_status (pool-level vs session-level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Omit sessionId to check all sessions' (clear parameter usage) and 'Quick diagnostic for debugging' (when to use). Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like session_list or pool_status for when NOT to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses the key behavioral trait: persistence across navigations (explicitly calling out Playwright built-in behavior). Also clarifies execution timing (before page scripts). Missing reversibility details (how to remove), but covers the critical persistence side-effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tightly constructed sentences: core action (inject JS), behavioral trait (persistence), and use cases. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the essential verb and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description appropriately focuses on the persistence behavior—a critical operational detail for stateful injection. Could be improved with a brief note on error handling or cleanup, but adequately covers the essential contract for a setup/injection tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description frames the temporal context ('before every page load') which complements the schema descriptions, but doesn't add specific syntax, format constraints, or examples beyond what's already defined in the schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent clarity: 'Inject JavaScript' provides specific verb and resource, 'before every page load in a session' defines scope/timing, and use cases (fingerprint overrides, stealth patches) distinguish it from immediate execution tools like 'execute' in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The persistence note ('Persists across navigations') provides critical context for when to use this versus one-time execution tools. Use cases listed (fingerprinting, instrumentation) guide selection. Lacks explicit 'when-not' or named alternatives (e.g., 'use execute for one-time scripts'), but the persistence behavior is strong implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description covers execution order (sequential), pausing (delayAfter), and return structure ('single result with the outcome of each action'). Missing critical behavioral details: error handling (fail-fast vs continue), atomicity, and timeout behavior for long batches.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), value proposition with examples (sentence 2), specific parameter behavior (sentence 3), and return value (sentence 4). Front-loaded with core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Well-covered despite lack of output schema because description explicitly states return structure ('single result with the outcome of each action'). With 100% schema coverage and complex nested parameters, the description appropriately focuses on high-level behavioral context rather than re-documenting schema fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable semantic context for 'delayAfter' ('to pause between steps') and frames the 'actions' array within 'humanization sequences', aiding agent understanding of intended use patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Execute' with resource 'browser actions' and scope 'sequentially in a single MCP call'. The phrase 'Eliminates round-trip overhead' clearly distinguishes this from single-action siblings like `act`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear use case context ('humanization sequences', 'Bezier mouse paths') and benefit ('Eliminates round-trip overhead'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance versus calling `act` multiple times.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively lists the specific data fields returned (stealth tier, wait strategy, block history, consent selector, API endpoints, visit count), giving clear expectations of output. Could improve by clarifying if this reads from cache/database or makes network requests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action, followed by specific output fields, then parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with high information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter inspection tool, the description adequately compensates for missing output schema by enumerating returned fields. Missing annotations are not the description's fault, though explicit mention of read-only nature would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'domain' parameter fully documented in schema as 'Omit to list all'. Description adds valuable semantic reinforcement ('Pass no domain to list all known domains'), clarifying the dual behavior of listing all domains vs inspecting one.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('what Leapfrog has learned about a website'). Lists specific attributes returned (stealth tier, wait strategy, block history, etc.), distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like 'navigate' or 'extract'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific guidance for the optional parameter ('Pass no domain to list all known domains'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when to inspect learned knowledge vs performing fresh navigation/inspection with other tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Adds valuable behavioral context: reveals 30-minute idle timeout policy and per-session idle tracking. However, omits safety profile (read-only status) and whether calling this frequently impacts pool performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficiently structured sentences. First sentence front-loads capabilities (stats, usage, sessions). Second sentence provides actionable threshold guidance (30-minute timeout). No repetition of title or name, zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema provided, but description compensates by enumerating return data: pool stats, resource usage metrics (memory/uptime), session summaries, and idle times. Adequate for a parameterless monitoring tool, though explicit mention of response structure would elevate to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present. With no input requirements, there are no semantic gaps to fill. Baseline score of 4 applies per rubric specification for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Show' with clear resources: 'pool stats, resource usage (memory, uptime), and all active session summaries.' Distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing pool-wide scope and system metrics (memory/uptime) versus session-specific tools like 'session_health' or 'session_list_profiles'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides operational guidance on actions to take based on output: 'Sessions approaching 30-minute idle timeout should be refreshed or saved.' However, lacks explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., when to use this vs 'session_health' for individual session status).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the external dependency (CDP endpoint), security boundary (isolated session vs real browser), data scope (cookies, auth sessions), and capture mechanism. Could improve by mentioning error handling (e.g., Chrome not running) or idempotency (overwriting existing profiles).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes the core operation, second explains benefits/constraints, third provides essential setup command. Information density is high with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers the complex multi-step workflow (Chrome setup, CDP connection, cookie extraction, profile creation) despite having no output schema or annotations. The Chrome startup command is crucial context for a tool requiring external process coordination. Minor gap: doesn't specify behavior when profile name already exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds meaningful context: explains 'cdp' via the Chrome startup command, clarifies 'name' as the Leapfrog profile destination, and implies 'domains' through the cookie capture explanation. Elevates understanding beyond dry schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verbs (connect, capture, save) and clearly identifies the source resource (Chrome browser via CDP) and target (Leapfrog profile). It distinguishes from generic profile creation by specifying the Chrome CDP import mechanism and outcomes (Google auth, reCAPTCHA trust).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear prerequisites (Chrome must be started with --remote-debugging-port=9222) and explains the value proposition (real auth in isolated session). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like profile_warm or session_create, or when not to use it (e.g., if Chrome isn't available).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses: specific sites visited, operation duration (60-90s), side effects (state stored in domain knowledge), and prerequisite validation. Missing only error conditions and return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences, each earning its place: action definition, problem context, duration/outcome, state management, and prerequisites. Logical flow from why to how to what is needed. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a stateful 60-90 second operation despite no output schema. Covers mechanism, duration, anti-bot rationale, and session prerequisites. Only gap is explicit error handling (what happens if session invalid or already warmed).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear description 'Session ID (must be a profile-based session)'. Tool description reinforces this requirement ('Must pass a sessionId of an existing session with a profile') but does not add significant new semantics like format examples or validation beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('Warm up') + resource ('browser profile'), distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like profile_delete/profile_list. Explains mechanism (browsing Google/Wikipedia/YouTube) and domain-specific purpose (reCAPTCHA trust scores).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Excellent contextual guidance: specifies when needed (fresh profiles scoring near 0 on reCAPTCHA v3), duration (60-90s), prerequisite (existing session with profile), and idempotency hint (stores state so it doesn't repeat). Lacks explicit comparison to manual navigation via 'navigate' tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return value ('Returns a snapshot') and special index behavior (-1 for most recent). Deducted one point for not mentioning error behavior (e.g., invalid index) or loading states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes core action; second delivers critical usage hint (-1/popups) and return value disclosure. Perfect information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Compensates for missing output schema by explicitly stating it 'Returns a snapshot of the newly active tab.' Given simple 2-parameter structure with 100% schema coverage, description is adequately complete. Minor gap: no error handling documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'useful for popups' context for tabIndex and reinforces the index concept, but doesn't add syntax/format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('Switch') + resource ('tab') with scope ('by index'). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings: vs tab_close (closes), vs tabs_list (lists), vs navigate (loads URLs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific positive guidance: 'Use -1... (useful for popups)' indicating when to use the special index value. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the popup use case is valuable contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively explains return behavior ('Returns a fresh snapshot if the page navigated, or just the action result'), clarifies mechanical details ('mouse.down() + wait + mouse.up()' for holdDuration), and documents action-specific constraints. Could be improved by stating element waiting behavior or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Highly information-dense without redundancy. Structure logically flows from general capability → target syntax → action-specific requirements → return behavior. Every clause serves a distinct purpose, though the density approaches the upper limit for single-paragraph readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters and multi-modal behavior (15 distinct actions), the description adequately covers the complexity by documenting conditional requirements for each action type. Explains output behavior despite absence of formal output schema. Minor gap: could mention behavior when elements are not yet present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds critical semantic context: explaining @eN reference syntax, the target/target2 relationship for drag operations, and that resize requires no target. These relationships between parameters are not captured in the isolated schema field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Perform a browser interaction' followed by a comprehensive list of specific actions (click, fill, type, check, etc.), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'navigate' (page loading) and 'snapshot' (observation). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides concrete guidance on using '@eN refs from navigate/snapshot as the target,' implicitly indicating this tool should be used after those sibling tools. Documents conditional parameter requirements (e.g., 'drag: requires target and target2'). However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance versus alternatives like 'wait_for' or 'batch_actions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries significant burden: discloses return value ('snapshot of the new active tab'), safety constraint (cannot close last tab), and implies destructive state change.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with mechanism, default, constraint, and return value—all essential information efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a low-complexity tool: compensates for missing output schema by describing return value, documents constraints, and aligns with 100% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both sessionId and tabIndex; description reinforces default behavior but does not add semantic depth beyond schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Close' with resource 'tab' and mechanism 'by index' clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tab_switch and tabs_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Documents default behavior (active tab) and critical constraint 'Cannot close the last remaining tab', though lacks explicit alternative tool recommendation for that edge case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds well: it reveals pagination auto-detection behavior ('auto-detects next buttons'), discloses hard caps ('50 pages, 100K total chars') not explicitly calculated in schema constraints, and describes return values ('extracted content plus metadata') despite the absence of an output schema. It could improve by mentioning error handling for partial pagination failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of tightly packed sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose, the second covers capabilities, the third details auto-detection behavior, and the fourth covers returns, efficiency gains, and limits. Critical information (caps, auto-detection) is front-loaded and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 11-parameter multi-modal tool, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contracts: pagination strategies, extraction types, stopping conditions (implied by 'cap'), and return characteristics. Given the rich schema coverage and lack of output schema, mentioning the metadata return provides sufficient completeness, though explicit error behavior for incomplete pagination would elevate this to a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds meaningful context beyond raw schema documentation: it explains the relationship between 'nextSelector=auto' and the auto-detection behavior, clarifies the three pagination modes in plain language, and contextualizes the caps (50 pages, 100K chars) that govern parameter interactions without repeating schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('data across multiple pages'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'extract' and 'navigate' by emphasizing multi-page handling and stating it 'Replaces 3-4 tool calls per page with one invocation', establishing its unique batch-processing value proposition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by enumerating specific pagination strategies ('click-next, infinite scroll, and URL-pattern') and mentioning efficiency benefits over manual extraction. However, it lacks explicit contrast with sibling alternatives (e.g., when to use 'extract' vs 'paginate') and doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring an active session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Excellently discloses blocking behavior ('blocks until the user clicks Done'), UI mechanism ('@..@ overlay'), and resolution condition ('Returns success when resolved').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four well-structured sentences: purpose, mechanism, usage guidelines, and blocking behavior. Front-loaded with main action, zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers blocking nature, UI overlay, return value, and use cases. No output schema but description mentions return behavior. Minor gap: doesn't mention timeout behavior if any exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions. Description references 'your reason' linking the parameter to the UI behavior, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific action: 'Pause and request human intervention' with mechanism 'Shows the @..@ overlay'. Explicitly distinguishes from automation tools like 'act' or 'wait_for' by specifying human involvement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use with concrete examples: 'CAPTCHA, login wall, or any situation requiring human action'. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or named sibling alternatives (e.g., contrast with 'wait_for'), but clear context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical runtime behaviors: BrowserContext isolation model ('no cookie leakage'), concrete pool limit (15), auto-expiry (30 min), return value format (s_k3m7x1), and resource management requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Six sentences, zero waste. Structure front-loads the action, followed by return value, isolation guarantee, resource limits, expiry policy, and operational pattern. Each sentence delivers distinct, essential information for a stateful resource constructor.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a complex 17-parameter initialization tool with no output schema. Covers creation contract, return format, isolation semantics, resource constraints, and maintenance patterns—sufficient for correct agent operation without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds conceptual framing ('isolated browser session with its own cookies and state') that contextualizes the 17 configuration parameters but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with specific verb+resource ('Create a new isolated browser session') and distinguishes from siblings by explaining it returns a session ID 'to pass to all other tools', establishing it as the prerequisite entry point for the browser tool suite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides operational guidance on keep-alive patterns ('periodic navigate or snapshot') and lifecycle constraints (pool limit, expiry). Lacks explicit comparison to sibling session_* tools (e.g., session_health), but clearly signals it must be called first via the session ID reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains output behavior clearly (returns additions/removals/changes, token savings, first-call returns full snapshot). Implies read-only via 'Compare' and 'Returns', though could explicitly state no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four efficient sentences covering purpose, value proposition, usage guidelines, edge case, and parameter hint. Zero redundancy. Information density is high with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple 2-param schema and no annotations/output schema, description adequately covers tool purpose, sibling differentiation, edge cases, and return value semantics. Could briefly mention error state if no session exists, but otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds semantic context beyond schema: explains selector scopes to 'page region' (operational context) and session dependency via 'last snapshot for this session'. Adds meaningful value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Compare' + resource 'current page state' + clear scope 'against the last snapshot'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'snapshot' tool by explaining the delta/diff nature and token savings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after act instead of snapshot when you just need to see what changed'. Clear alternative named (snapshot) and context (after act). Also covers edge case behavior for first call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Latest Blog Posts
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/anthonybono21-cloud/leapfrog'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server