Skip to main content
Glama

browse

Destructive

Find a page element that matches your intent and, when the safety gate permits, perform the requested action on it. Set min_confidence to control acceptance.

Instructions

Find the element matching an intent and, if the gate allows it, act on it.

    Returns the gate verdict (auto / review / blocked), the confidence, the
    target element and its Playwright selector. Only ``auto`` decisions are
    executed. On large pages even precise intents score 0.8-0.95, so pass
    ``min_confidence`` to set your own bar; risky patterns and the
    deterministic checks still apply and cannot be overridden.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNo
actionNoclick
intentYes
min_confidenceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: gate verdicts (auto/review/blocked), confidence scoring on large pages, and that risky patterns/deterministic checks cannot be overridden. This goes well beyond the 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Approximately 90 words with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes distinct behavioral or configuration detail; no obvious redundancy or irrelevant filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers gate behavior and confidence thresholds. However, the missing semantics for `value` and the valid range of `action` are notable gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation despite the rich behavioral context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains min_confidence with concrete score ranges and references intent, but it does not clarify the meaning of the `value` parameter or allowed values for `action`, leaving two of four parameters under-specified.

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 states a clear purpose: find an element matching an intent and act on it if the gate allows. It references a gate and Playwright selector, which helps distinguish it from simpler action tools, though the phrase 'act on it' is somewhat broad.

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?

The description implies usage for intent-based element discovery and gated action, and gives parameter guidance around min_confidence. However, it never explicitly contrasts browse with sibling tools like fill_form or press_key, nor does it 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.