Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
browser-guard-mcp

browser-guard-mcp

by egoring
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_guard_status

Read-only

Check current guard settings for allowed domains, read-only mode, and text limits to validate active safety rules.

Instructions

현재 가드 설정(허용 도메인·읽기 전용 여부·텍스트 상한)을 돌려준다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_guard_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond that: 'current' implies dynamic state, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as side effects (none expected) or freshening guarantees. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds marginal value.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('returns current guard settings') and enumerates the specific fields. There is no wasted prose, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (allowed domains, read-only flag, text limit). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what information will be available, though it does not detail formatting or e.g. default values. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4 because no parameter documentation is 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns current guard settings with specific detail: allowed domains, read-only status, and text limit. This is a distinct query operation compared to sibling tools that perform actions (navigate, click, fill, screenshot), so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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 given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended context (e.g., 'check before navigating'), or any exclusions. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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