Skip to main content
Glama
getcustomaise

customaise

Official
by getcustomaise
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_bridge_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check bridge state and remaining MCP quota before long runs. Reports extension attachment, sign-in, plan tier, and remote approvals; optionally verifies save status without consuming cap units.

Instructions

Report the bridge's own state: whether the extension is attached, the plan tier, whether you are signed in, whether remote approvals are enabled, and how much of the MCP cap is left today and this week. Costs NO cap units. Without scriptId it reads cached bridge state; with scriptId it queries the browser for the latest save status and durable commit receipt. After a timeout, inspect that status before retrying. Unknown means no retained proof, not proof of failure. Check this before a long run so you find out you have three calls left now rather than mid-task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptIdNoOptionally inspect the latest save for this script; reads the browser without spending a cap unit.
operationIdNoSave operation ID from export progress or a timeout. Requires scriptId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.2.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / operationId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Save operation ID from export progress or a timeout. Requires scriptId.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scriptId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optionally inspect the latest save for this script; reads the browser without spending a cap unit.",
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv3.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it costs no cap units, it reads cached state without scriptId but queries the browser with scriptId, and it clarifies that 'unknown' means no retained proof rather than failure. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: what is reported, cost implication, parameter-dependent behavior, retry guidance, semantics of unknown, and when to call it. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what fields are returned, cost behavior, the effect of both parameters, timeout guidance, and how to interpret ambiguous results. An agent has enough to decide when and how to call this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that scriptId changes the data source from cached state to a live browser query, and by linking operationId to save progress and timeout scenarios. This goes beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource ('the bridge's own state'), then enumerates the exact fields covered: attachment, plan tier, sign-in, remote approvals, and MCP cap usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_context or get_console_context, which target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: check before a long run to avoid discovering a low cap mid-task, and inspect status after a timeout before retrying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool serves this same purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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