Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-chrome-server

mcp-chrome-server

by dlwjdtn535
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tool_execute_script

Execute JavaScript code with arguments in a Chrome browser to automate web page interactions and actions.

Instructions

Execute JavaScript code.

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": {
      "script": "<script>",
      "args": "<args>"
    },
    "name": "tool_execute_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptYes
argsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention potential side effects, security implications, return values, or execution scope (e.g., global/window). This is a significant omission for a tool that executes arbitrary code.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Essential information is missing, and it does not front-load critical details like parameter usage or return behavior.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's potential power (executing arbitrary code), the description is extremely incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, permissions, and the execution context, making it insufficient for safe and correct usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters ('script' and 'args'). It does not explain what 'args' are or how they relate to the script, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Execute JavaScript code' clearly identifies the action (execute) and resource (JavaScript code). It is distinct from sibling tools like tool_click or tool_navigate, though it lacks context about the execution environment (e.g., browser).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for custom scripting or debugging, nor does it suggest appropriate contexts or exclude inappropriate ones.

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