Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tester Agent

Tester Agent

by datb2404981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

AI quan sát trạng thái website

tester_browser_inspect

Inspects the live browser page to return current interface content and JavaScript errors, enabling AI to discover UI state and generate the next testing step.

Instructions

Trả về nội dung giao diện và lỗi JS hiện tại để AI tự khám phá, sinh bước kiểm thử tiếp theo.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "tester_browser_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the returned artifacts (giao diện + lỗi JS), which implies a non-mutating observation. It says nothing about permissions, cost, page-state side effects, or whether the snapshot is scoped to a loaded page from tester_browser_start.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the return payload and its intended use, with no filler. It fits in a single breath, though it could add one clause naming the project argument without bloat.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the shape of the returned UI/error data and the meaning of 'project'. As written it conveys the intent but leaves the caller guessing about inputs and return structure.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'project' is never mentioned, so the agent gets no hint about what identifier to pass or what happens for an unknown project. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete result set — current UI content plus JS errors — so an agent knows this is a state-snapshot/read tool. It does not contrast itself with lookalike siblings such as tester_browser_see or tester_browser_layout_audit, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'để AI tự khám phá, sinh bước kiểm thử tiếp theo' suggests it belongs at exploration time before choosing the next test step. There is no explicit when-not-to-use and no named alternative for assert/audit flows.

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