Skip to main content
Glama
brnyxx

jev-ra

by brnyxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_run

Execute a full goal on the current web page, providing typed values as needed. Resume from a human-checkpoint using a run ID to continue rather than restart.

Instructions

Pursue a whole goal on the current page. Supply values for anything that must be typed.

Pass resume with the run id a needs_human escalation returned, once the person has cleared the check, to carry that run on instead of starting the goal again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNo
resumeNo
valuesNo
max_stepsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / goal / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / resume
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Resume"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "goal"
-]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the resume flow and human escalation, which is behavioral. It does not contradict annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, success/failure behavior, or page state changes beyond the resume note, so it adds only marginal transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. The second sentence is slightly convoluted with the phrase 'a needs_human escalation returned' but remains efficient. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that pursues a whole goal with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, how max_steps works, error handling, or how it relates to the other browser_* tools. It relies heavily on the annotations for safety context, but the operational behavior is underspecified for an agent to use it confidently in complex scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It references 'goal' implicitly via 'Pursue a whole goal', explains 'values' as 'anything that must be typed', and mentions 'resume' explicitly. It does not mention 'max_steps' at all. The explanations are high-level and don't clarify formats or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Pursue a whole goal on the current page.' This distinguishes it from the sibling action tools (browser_click, browser_type, etc.) which perform single actions. It's specific 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives partial usage guidance: it instructs to supply values for typed input and explains the resume mechanism for needs_human escalation. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool vs the alternative single-action tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is useful but incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools