Skip to main content
Glama
brunoboto96

SceneScout

by brunoboto96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scout_run_plan

Execute up to 20 UI actions in one call to fill forms or walk wizards without round-trips; semantic locators target elements and plans abort on oracle or policy violations.

Instructions

Execute up to 20 actions in ONE call — use for mechanical sequences (fill a form, walk a wizard) so each step doesn't cost a round-trip. Targets resolve at execution time by semantic locator: 'testid=…', 'text=…', 'label=…' or 'role=button[name=Save]' (never snapshot refs). The same steps, saved to .scenescout/flows/.json with expect-text / expect-url / expect-request steps added, are replayed by scenescout check on every pull request. An upload step attaches a file as scout_upload does (target required — the file input or the control that opens its chooser; value = a fixture kind or a project-relative path). The plan ABORTS at the first NEW oracle violation, policy refusal, or failed step, returning a transcript of how far it got; repeats of already-reported violations do not abort (they stay logged for the report). For a sweep of independent steps (tabs, filters, pages) pass onViolation "continue": a new error status or its console echo is listed on its step's line and the plan goes on; a failed step, a policy refusal or any other violation still stops it. A select step whose value names no option fails at once, listing the options.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoWhat you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. "Filtering the documents register by status", "Filling the deviation form with invalid dates", "Signing in as QA_Team" — NOT "§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine ("§2.4: filtering the documents register"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.
stepsYes
sessionNoTarget this session directly instead of the active one — pass it explicitly when dispatching to MULTIPLE sessions in one turn (e.g. two scout_click calls with different `session`), which then run CONCURRENTLY rather than queueing. Omit for single-session sequential use.
objectiveNoOld name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.
onViolationNostop (default): end the plan at the first new oracle violation, right for a form flow whose steps depend on each other. continue: list a new http_error or console_error on its step's line and run the next step, for a sweep of independent stepsstop

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.17.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / onViolation
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "stop",
+  "description": "stop (default): end the plan at the first new oracle violation, right for a form flow whose steps depend on each other. continue: list a new http_error or console_error on its step's line and run the next step, for a sweep of independent steps",
+  "enum": [
+    "stop",
+    "continue"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv3.11.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / target / description
      Previous value: -"testid=…, text=…, label=… (or a path for navigate; 'top'/'bottom'/±px for scroll; for upload: the file input or the control that opens its chooser)"New value: +"testid=…, text=…, label=…, role=<role>[name=\"…\"] (or a path for navigate; 'top'/'bottom'/±px for scroll; for upload: the file input or the control that opens its chooser)"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / objective
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Old name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / task
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "What you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. \"Filtering the documents register by status\", \"Filling the deviation form with invalid dates\", \"Signing in as QA_Team\" — NOT \"§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL\", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine (\"§2.4: filtering the documents register\"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses abort-on-first-new-violation semantics, that repeated violations do not abort, policy-refusal and failed-step stops, the returned transcript, and the exact continue-mode behavior. It also specifies execution-time target resolution and select-step failure, which an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and batching rationale, and each sentence conveys a distinct behavioral rule. It is dense and long, but the length is largely justified by the failure-mode detail; only minor tightening is possible.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex batched-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers abort conditions, per-step failure, continue-mode behavior, and the returned transcript. Return-value detail beyond 'a transcript of how far it got' is thin, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 80%, but the description adds real meaning: targets resolve at execution time by semantic locator and 'never snapshot refs', plus the upload value being a fixture kind or project-relative path. Most other param detail (onViolation, task) mirrors the schema, so it earns above the baseline 3 without being exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb and scope ('Execute up to 20 actions in ONE call') and immediately names the intended scenarios ('fill a form, walk a wizard'), which clearly separates it from the single-action siblings like scout_click and scout_type. An agent can tell what this does and when it beats multiple round-trips without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear when-to-use context: mechanical sequences vs a 'sweep of independent steps' with onViolation 'continue'. It explains the stop-vs-continue decision well, but never explicitly names a sibling alternative (e.g. 'for a single action use scout_click'), so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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