Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mithwire MCP

Mithwire MCP

by elendil-tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

browser_html

Retrieve the current page's HTML from a browser session, with an optional character limit to control output size for DOM inspection or parsing.

Instructions

Return current page HTML (optionally truncated).

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "browser_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_charsNo
session_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at truncation ("optionally truncated") but never says whether the default cap applies, how truncation is signaled, or that a live session is required. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage these are real gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is proportionate to the amount of information actually conveyed. It is terse rather than padded, though that terseness is what drives the gaps above.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits the session prerequisite, the truncation contract, and any routing versus sibling content-retrieval tools. For a tool with 0% parameter documentation and no annotations, it is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It vaguely alludes to truncation, mapping loosely to max_chars, but never names the parameter, explains its units/default, or describes what session_id selects.

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?

Specific verb (Return) plus resource (current page HTML), which is enough for an agent to know the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like browser_snapshot, browser_query, or browser_evaluate, all of which also produce page content in different forms.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With 60+ siblings, several of which surface page content, the agent gets no help deciding between raw HTML, a snapshot, or an evaluate call.

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