Argus

by chriswu727

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose covering different aspects of testing: session management, interactions, observation, verification, and bug recording. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., click_what, upload_file, verify_persistence). The naming is predictable and informative.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the set is well-scoped for a testing framework. Each tool provides essential functionality without unnecessary redundancy or clutter.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full testing lifecycle from session start to end, including interaction, observation, verification, and bug reporting. Minor gaps like explicit scroll or reload tools are absent but can be worked around.
Average 4.5/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 127 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 21, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 2 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

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.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation contradiction: description claims 'Read-only (clean GETs)' while annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This inconsistency undermines trust. Despite rich behavioral detail, the contradiction is critical.
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?
Detailed but well-organized with clear sections. Slightly lengthy for a no-param tool, but each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully explains behavior (independent re-checks, classification outcomes, read-only nature) despite no parameters. Output schema exists to cover return values.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining the nullary operation's scope and classification logic.
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?
Clearly states the tool re-tests previously-recorded findings against the current build to verify fixes and detect regressions. Distinct from siblings like 'record_bug' or 'observe' by focusing on replay and classification.
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?
Describes when to use (post-deployment regression check) and implicitly when not to (not for new captures). Lacks explicit alternatives but context from siblings provides enough 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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on what destructive behavior occurs (e.g., terminating previous sessions). It adds context about navigating to a URL but omits details about session lifecycle or async behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a brief bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's role as a session starter, the description covers core purpose and parameters. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, it could mention that this tool is required before using other browser tools. Overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds clear meaning to each parameter beyond the schema titles, including example URL format, default values for headless and viewport, and the purpose of review_mode. Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.
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 title 'Start Browser Test' and description 'Start a browser testing session and navigate to the given URL' clearly state the verb (start), resource (browser test session), and specific action (navigate to URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like end_session or click_what.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., capsule_restore) or when not to use it. The description implies it is the entry point for browser testing but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, making the mutation behavior transparent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes essential examples and cross-references without extraneous text.
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?
Given the simple parameter set and presence of output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete, though it could add detail on behavior when no match is found.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description only provides examples for 'text' and 'description' but does not explain the matching resolution or constraints for 'description', leaving parameter semantics underspecified.
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 clearly states the action ('Type `text`') and the resource ('input element best matching `description`'), with examples that differentiate from sibling tool 'click_what' by referencing its resolution rules.
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?
Examples and cross-reference to 'click_what' for ambiguity behavior provide clear usage guidance, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' context.
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?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. Description adds that the tool generates an HTML error report and returns its path and summary, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, clear sentences front-load the main action and return value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and annotations indicating destructiveness, the description provides sufficient context about actions and return values, especially given an output schema exists.
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?
No parameters exist in the input schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'End the testing session, close the browser, and generate an HTML error report.' It uses a specific verb ('End') and resource ('testing session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_session'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. Usage is implied as the counterpart to 'start_session', but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (not deterministic). The description adds behavioral context: it keeps current state (logged in, cart, form) and allows testing transitions. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, then practical usage details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects, use case, and post-action. It lacks minimum/maximum constraints but is otherwise complete.
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 0%, so the description compensates by providing common width values (375, 414, 768, 1280/1440) and implying pixel units. It could also suggest common height values or constraints.
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 explicitly states the tool resizes the viewport mid-session for testing responsive layouts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like emulate_device by focusing on viewport size only.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to test transitions and keep state) versus opening a fresh session. It also suggests post-resize action (observe). However, it does not explicitly compare to emulate_device or state 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description says it 'produce[s] a third image', implying a new file is created. It does not specify whether this tool modifies any existing files or requires specific permissions, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear summary paragraph followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 17 sibling tools, the description covers purpose, parameters, use cases, and limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains all four parameters: 'before' and 'after' as screenshot paths, 'name' as output label, and 'threshold' with range (0-255) and default (25). It adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.
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 clearly identifies the tool as comparing two screenshots and producing a diff image with highlights. It uses specific verbs ('compare', 'produce') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'screenshot' (capture) and 'observe' (check existence).
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?
The description provides concrete use cases (layout shifts, content updates, focus-ring changes, modal overlays, theme switches) and explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('does not auto-judge whether a diff is a bug'). It lacks explicit alternatives or conditions to avoid using it, but offers strong contextual guidance.
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?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the hover is 'real :hover (not synthetic)' and lists triggered effects like tooltips, dropdown menus, and hover-only buttons. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world, and the description enriches this without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences plus a usage note. No unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded (purpose and behavioral trait).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral details, and alternatives for edge cases. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter `description` has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what format the description should take (e.g., CSS selector, text, or other). While the tool's purpose is clear, the semantics of the parameter are under-specified.
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 clearly states 'Hover the mouse over the element best matching `description`.' It specifies the verb 'hover' and the resource 'element by description'. Among siblings like click_what and type_into, it distinguishes itself by the hover action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Use after the element shows up in observe' and provides alternatives: 'introspect via inspect_element or fall back to eval_js' for elements observe filters out. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?
The description correctly indicates a write operation (recording a note), matching the annotation 'readOnlyHint: false'. It adds context about the type of note but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, for a simple observation recording tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and structured parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and differentiation from siblings. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides thorough Args section explaining each parameter: title (headline), evidence (what is visible and why it matters), category (with list of possible values), and screenshot (with valid options). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool records a qualitative review note without classifying it as a bug. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'record_bug' by specifying this is for observations that do not meet the bug bar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool (for visual polish, hierarchy, readability, content, responsive, or usability observations that aren't bugs) and implies when not to (for actual bugs, use record_bug).
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?
Annotations indicate destructive and non-readonly. Description adds detailed behavior: sets cookies+storage, navigates to URL, checks liveness, returns LIVE/STALE, and explains implications of STALE (unreliable bugs until re-mint). This goes well beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise description with front-loaded purpose, clear process steps, and relevant warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, annotations, and existence of output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, return values, and state implications. No gaps identified.
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?
Only one parameter 'name' with 0% schema description coverage. Description adds 'looked up for the current origin', which provides meaning beyond the bare schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool restores a saved capsule onto the session and verifies liveness, with explicit actions (sets cookies+storage, navigates, checks marker). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_session or verify_persistence.
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?
Describes the restore-and-verify workflow and warns about STALE capsules. Provides clear context for use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.
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?
The description discloses matching criteria (visible text, aria-label, placeholder, name, id, parent context) and the non-guessing behavior when ambiguous. This adds significant value beyond annotations, which already indicate destructiveness. No contradictions.
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 concise but includes necessary details like examples and ambiguity handling. It could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an NL click tool, the description is comprehensive: it explains the action, matching sources, ambiguity resolution, and safety note. Despite an output schema existing, the description does not need to explain return values further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'description' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining it is natural-language, providing examples, and detailing how it is matched. This is highly informative.
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 clearly states the tool clicks the element best matching a natural-language description. Examples ('Login button', 'Add Task') make the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from siblings like hover_what by focusing on clicking action.
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?
The description explains when to use (natural-language description) and how ambiguity is handled (returns top candidates for rephrasing). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like hover_what, but the context is clear.
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?
Annotations indicate not read-only, but description adds that session state (cookies/login) carries over and that the page is re-opened. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the basic annotation flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: first sentence states core purpose, second explains distinction from resize, third covers state carry-over, fourth gives examples, fifth suggests observation. No redundancy, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present, annotations provided), the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral effects, and follow-up actions. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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?
Input schema has a single string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description provides example device names and explains the parameter's role, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, no formal restrictions or enum values are given.
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 clearly states the tool re-opens the page as a mobile device with full device identity (touch, UA, DPR, viewport), distinguishing it from resize() which only changes dimensions. It lists common device names, making the purpose specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly contrasts with resize() for plain breakpoints vs true device emulation, recommends using observe() after, and mentions session state carry-over. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that Argus does not auto-flag issues, clarifying limitations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences and a line, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with output schema, the description fully explains what it returns, when to use it, and what it does not do. Complete.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Baseline 4 as no additional info needed.
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?
Clearly states it observes the current target (page, app, or screen) and lists all returned elements. Distinct from sibling tools like screenshot or record_observation.
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?
Explicitly says 'Read this first' and recommends calling after every action. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, but the context is clear.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint. Description adds context about key effects and focusing elements, but does not fully expand on behaviors beyond the action. No contradiction.
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?
Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy but overall effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two simple parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. Covers purpose, parameter details, use cases, and next steps (observe). No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It lists valid Playwright key names and explains the description parameter for focusing elements. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it presses a keyboard key, lists examples like Escape, Enter, Arrow keys, and distinguishes from click/type. Specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (modal close, form submit, arrow navigation, focus-order bugs) and that click/type cannot exercise these. Recommends using observe after. No explicit exclusions but context is clear.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it wraps Playwright's set_input_files and works on hidden inputs, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction; slight gap on side effects or file overwriting not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short paragraphs with no extraneous content. First paragraph states purpose and mechanism, second lists arguments. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Covers input parameters, alternative tool, and underlying mechanism. Missing explicit mention that paths must be absolute and files must exist, but given output schema exists (not shown), overall adequate. Could be slightly more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully explains both parameters: description (how to match input) and paths (list of absolute paths, single file as one-element list). Adds practical value beyond schema structure.
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?
Clearly states it attaches files to a file input element, with specific verb 'attach'. Differentiates from sibling drop_file by specifying it works on file inputs (visible/hidden) and not on drag-drop zones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (file inputs, visible or hidden) and when not (drag-drop zones without underlying input, use drop_file). Provides practical guidance on description argument: 'file', 'upload', or visible label 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?
The description confirms it is a read-only operation (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) and adds context that it does not auto-record bugs. However, it could mention any potential side effects or performance overhead, though none expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise three-sentence description. First sentence front-loads purpose, subsequent sentences provide usage context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what metrics are read, when to use it, and when to use an alternative tool. Covers all key aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by listing the specific metrics returned, which helps the agent understand the output.
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 clearly states the tool reads raw performance metrics from the browser's Performance API, listing specific metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'record_bug' by noting that performance auditing is owned by Lighthouse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus record_bug: only call record_bug if performance issues materially block users. No unnecessary use of this tool for auto-recording.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds critical details: it forces a fresh GET, clears storage optionally (with explanation of impact including potential logout), and states that Argus does not auto-record bugs. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections, examples, and front-loaded essential information. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Length is justified by the need to explain parameters and usage nuances.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and fallback to record_bug. Handles edge cases like clear_storage causing logout. Highly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully explains each parameter: expect (present/absent), target_text (what to check), after_url (page to load, defaults to current URL), clear_storage (wipes client storage with detailed effect implications). Compensates completely for missing schema 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?
Description explicitly states 'Force a fresh page load and report whether target_text is present or absent', clearly identifying verb (verify) and resource (state after reload). Distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the tool for catching misleading success toasts after persistence-changing actions.
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?
Provides explicit context: use after destructive/persistence-changing actions, and when not to trust success toasts. Includes two examples and directs to call record_bug on mismatch. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' statement, but context is sufficiently clear.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and description adds detail: affects session report, verify/replay re-executes steps with side effects, warns about writes_replayed. No contradictions.
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?
Structure is good: intro, usage condition, then parameter details. But somewhat verbose; however, each sentence adds necessary value for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, all parameters with examples, behavioral implications, and implicit alternative tools. Complete given tool complexity and output schema existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates with detailed explanations for all 4 parameters: title with examples, severity with criteria, verify with complex options and warnings, evidence with optional fields and bug_type choices. Adds immense meaning.
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?
Clearly states purpose: recording a confirmed bug. Distinguishes from speculation and polish nits, and implicitly from sibling record_observation for unconfirmed observations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call: only after confirming bug bar (reproducible, user-affecting, persistent). Tells when not to call: speculation or polish nits. Provides detailed usage conditions.
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?
Describes cropping behavior (element), full_page vs viewport, and that full_page is ignored when element is set. Annotations provide safety hints; description adds valuable context beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficient two-sentence summary plus well-structured parameter list. No wasted words; front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers all parameters, usage guidance, and behavioral nuances. No missing information for a screenshot capture tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are explained in detail: name as filename label, element for cropping with reference to click_what syntax, full_page behavior and interaction with element. Adds meaning despite 0% schema coverage.
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 clearly states 'Capture a screenshot' with specific modes (full viewport, full page, one element), distinguishing it from sibling tools like screenshot_diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: for visual evidence or before/after pairs, and mentions alternative tools (record_bug, screenshot_diff).
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:

[![argus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chriswu727/argus/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chriswu727/argus)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![argus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chriswu727/argus/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chriswu727/argus)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chriswu727/argus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server