Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mmjb-mcp

mmjb-mcp

by foklepoint
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

status

Report the current browser URL, configured decision and fallback models, and completed work progress for an mmjb-mcp session.

Instructions

Report the current URL, the configured decision and fallback models, and how much work has been done.

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": "status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only informational report, and the zero-parameter shape makes side effects unlikely, but it never explicitly states harmlessness, return format, or whether any state is mutated. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and the primary output (current URL). No filler, though "how much work has been done" is looser than the rest.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return contents, and it does list three categories. However, "how much work has been done" is ambiguous and no format or field detail is given, leaving the return shape only partially specified.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and focuses on what is reported rather than on parameters.

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 ("Report") and enumerates the resources returned: current URL, configured decision/fallback models, and progress. This is clearly a status/diagnostics read tool, distinguishably different from the action siblings (click, type, goto). Slightly weakened by the vague phrase "how much work has been done."

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 on when to call this versus alternatives like `doctor` (also diagnostic) or `look`. There is no statement of context, prerequisites, or conditions that select this tool. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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