Skip to main content
Glama

AI đổi kích thước màn hình để kiểm thử responsive

tester_browser_resize

Switch the browser viewport between desktop 1366×768 and mobile 390×844 without losing the current page or login session, enabling responsive QA checks.

Instructions

Đổi viewport desktop 1366×768 hoặc mobile 390×844 mà vẫn giữ phiên đăng nhập và trang hiện tại.

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>",
      "viewport": "<viewport>"
    },
    "name": "tester_browser_resize"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes
viewportYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior: the login session and current page survive the resize, implying no navigation or re-authentication side effect. It does not say whether the page reloads, whether the resize is reversible, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the concrete values, with the state-preservation caveat attached. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one important behavioral guarantee. It still leaves the required 'project' argument and failure/return behavior undocumented, so an agent must inspect the schema to fill the gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'viewport' enum meaningfully by mapping desktop/mobile to exact pixel dimensions, which the bare enum does not. However, the required 'project' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Đổi' = change) and resource ('viewport'), and pins down the two concrete sizes (1366×768 desktop, 390×844 mobile), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It is distinguishable from the audit siblings, though it never names them.

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: resizing implies responsive/layout checking, and the description notes the current session and page are preserved, which hints at mid-flow use. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as the layout or accessibility audit tools.

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