Daytona Playwright MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, browser_click is for clicking, browser_type is for typing, browser_screenshot is for capturing images, and browser_wait_for_selector is for waiting on element states. The descriptions reinforce these distinctions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'browser_verb' or 'browser_verb_noun' naming pattern (e.g., browser_back, browser_click, browser_screenshot). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count3/5
With 26 tools, the count feels heavy for a browser automation server, though not extreme. While it covers many operations, some tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., browser_back and browser_forward are simple navigations), making the set borderline in scope.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for browser automation, including session management (start, stop, status), navigation, interaction (click, type, hover), inspection (get_html, get_text), and utilities (screenshot, download). There are no obvious gaps, and agents can handle typical workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('image that can be displayed'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires an active browser session, what happens if the selector isn't found, performance/rate limits, file format details, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal beyond the basic return statement.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the action and return value. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with essential return information.
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?
Given this is a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address session requirements, error conditions, image format specifics, or how the returned image can actually be used/displayed. For a tool that interacts with a browser and returns binary data, more contextual information would be helpful for an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'current page or a specific element' which aligns with the full_page and selector parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 clearly states the action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('current page or a specific element'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_get_html or browser_get_text by focusing on visual capture rather than content extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible screenshot-related tools that might exist in other contexts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer full_page vs selector, or how this relates to other browser tools like browser_get_html for content extraction. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session) or performance considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but doesn't explain what happens after closure (e.g., if the browser switches to another tab, if data is lost, or if it requires specific permissions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail about consequences and side effects is a significant gap.
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, clear sentence ('Close a browser tab.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens post-closure) and usage guidelines, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in guidance.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'index' parameter well-documented as 'Index of the tab to close (defaults to current tab)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't clarify tab indexing specifics (e.g., zero-based) or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.
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 clearly states the action ('Close') and resource ('a browser tab'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_list_tabs or browser_new_tab by focusing on tab closure rather than listing or creating tabs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from browser_stop (which might close the entire browser) or specify if it closes only one tab versus multiple.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser or tab), exclusions (e.g., not for closing windows), or comparisons to siblings like browser_stop or browser_switch_tab. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention if this requires an active browser session, potential performance impacts for large pages, error handling for invalid selectors, or that it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get HTML content') and adds essential qualification ('from the page or a specific element'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, without annotations, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like session requirements or error cases, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (selector and outer). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the selector's purpose without details. Since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance semantics significantly.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML content'), specifying it can target 'the page or a specific element'. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_get_text (text vs HTML) and browser_get_attribute (attributes vs HTML), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like preferring browser_get_text for plain text, browser_screenshot for visual capture, or browser_evaluate for JavaScript execution. The description implies usage through 'page or a specific element' but offers no explicit when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what 'hover over' means in practice (e.g., simulates mouse movement, may trigger CSS events), potential side effects (e.g., could change page state), error conditions (e.g., if selector not found), or response behavior. For a browser automation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which likely describes the return value), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a browser interaction tool with no annotations and multiple similar siblings, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about behavior, usage scenarios, and differentiation from other tools, making it only adequate for simple use cases.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (selector and timeout). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid selectors or typical timeout values. However, since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('hover over') and target ('an element on the page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'browser_click' or 'browser_press', which also interact with page elements, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose hover versus other interaction methods.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical use cases (e.g., triggering dropdown menus, tooltips), prerequisites (e.g., element must be visible), or exclusions (e.g., not for clicking). With multiple sibling interaction tools available, this lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Navigate' implies a state-changing action, the description doesn't mention whether this opens a new tab, affects existing tabs, requires the browser to be running first, what happens if navigation fails, or any performance/rate limit considerations. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. The structure is optimal for such a straightforward tool.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (though not shown in the context), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a navigation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic action but lacks important context about prerequisites (browser must be started), error conditions, or how it integrates with the broader browser automation workflow.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'URL' which is obvious from the tool name and schema, but provides no additional context about URL validation, format requirements, or how the wait_until parameter affects navigation behavior.
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 clearly states the action ('Navigate') and resource ('the browser to a URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'browser_forward' or 'browser_refresh' which also involve navigation, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this specific navigation method.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple navigation-related siblings like 'browser_back', 'browser_forward', 'browser_refresh', and 'browser_wait_for_navigation', there's no indication whether this is for initial navigation, programmatic navigation, or how it differs from other navigation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether scrolling is smooth or instant, how it handles invalid selectors or directions, if it waits for page load, or what happens on errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Scroll') and target. There is zero waste—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, error handling, or integration details. The output schema may help, but the description doesn't reference it, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it hints at the 'selector' parameter's purpose ('specific element') but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('scroll') and the target ('the page or a specific element'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_navigate by focusing on scrolling functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools (none exist in the sibling list).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session), edge cases (e.g., scrolling beyond page limits), or comparisons to other navigation tools like browser_navigate. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens if the index is invalid (e.g., out of bounds), whether this affects browser state permanently, or if it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, and behavioral context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'index' fully documented in the schema as 'Index of the tab to switch to (0-based)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Switch to') and target ('a different browser tab by index'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like browser_list_tabs or browser_new_tab, but the verb 'switch' implies navigation between existing tabs rather than listing or creating them.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session or using browser_list_tabs first to get indices) or contrast with other navigation tools like browser_back or browser_navigate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the core action of typing text, it fails to describe important behavioral traits such as error handling (what happens if the selector doesn't exist or the element isn't editable), whether it waits for the element to be visible, or any side effects like triggering events. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, for a mutation tool (typing implies changing state) with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context, such as success/failure conditions or interaction effects, to be fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., selector for targeting, text for input, clear_first for clearing behavior). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 clearly states the action ('type text') and target ('into an input field or editable element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like browser_press (which might simulate key presses) or browser_select (which might select options), leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded browser automation context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., browser_click, browser_press, browser_select), there's no indication of when typing text is appropriate versus other input methods, nor any mention of prerequisites like requiring an element to be focused or editable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('wait for a navigation to complete') but lacks behavioral details such as what triggers the wait, error handling on timeout, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential blocking behavior and timeout parameters.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (navigation waiting with timeout), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by context), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action but lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'url' (pattern types) and 'timeout' (milliseconds). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately documents 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('wait for') and resource ('navigation'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_wait_for_selector by specifying navigation rather than DOM elements. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'complete' navigation (e.g., network idle, DOM ready).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be called after browser_navigate), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like browser_wait_for_selector. The description alone offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists possible states, it doesn't explain what happens when the timeout is reached, whether this blocks execution, what the return value indicates, or error conditions. For a waiting tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear bulleted list of states. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a waiting tool with no annotations, the description should do more to explain timeout behavior, blocking nature, and error conditions. The state explanations are helpful, but overall completeness is only adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each state option (attached, detached, visible, hidden), which provides semantic context beyond the enum values in the schema. This earns a baseline 3 with some added value.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for an element to reach a specific state.' It specifies the verb ('wait for') and resource ('element'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_wait_for_navigation. The description is specific about what the tool does, though it could better distinguish from similar waiting tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over browser_wait_for_navigation or other browser tools, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The tool exists in isolation without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens if there's no history to navigate back to, whether this affects the current page state, or what the output might contain. For a browser navigation tool, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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, clear sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple navigation operation and gets straight to the point.
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?
Given that this is a simple navigation tool with zero parameters and an output schema exists (so return values don't need description), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about when this operation is possible and what happens in edge cases, which would be helpful for an agent.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the action ('Navigate back') and resource ('browser history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'browser_forward', which would be the natural alternative for navigation in the opposite direction.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_forward' or 'browser_navigate'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites such as requiring an active browser session or having history to navigate back through.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it waits for page load, handles errors if no forward history exists, or requires an active browser session. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Navigate forward') and efficiently specifies the context ('in browser history'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, simple action) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about behavioral constraints (e.g., history availability) and sibling differentiation, which could improve completeness for agent use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist to document.
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 clearly states the action ('Navigate forward') and target ('in browser history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'browser_back' by specifying forward direction, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other navigation tools like 'browser_navigate' or 'browser_refresh'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing forward history available), exclusions (e.g., not for new navigation), or sibling comparisons (e.g., use 'browser_back' for backward navigation, 'browser_navigate' for new URLs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'refresh' entails—e.g., whether it reloads the page from cache or server, if it preserves form data, or if it triggers page events. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with behavioral aspects unexplained, it doesn't fully cover what the agent needs to know about the refresh operation's effects and prerequisites.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't mention any implicit context (e.g., requiring an active browser session), keeping it slightly incomplete.
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 clearly states the action ('Refresh') and the target ('the current page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_navigate' or 'browser_forward', which might also affect page content.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_navigate' (for loading a new URL) or 'browser_forward/back' (for navigation history). It lacks context about when refreshing is appropriate, such as after dynamic content updates or to reload stale data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Check' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't detail what specific status information is returned (e.g., session ID, active tabs, errors) or any behavioral traits like latency or dependencies. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is reduced. However, for a status-checking tool with no annotations, it should ideally specify what 'status' entails (e.g., session health, tab count) to be fully complete. The current description is minimal but adequate given the structured data support.
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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable, and the baseline score of 4 reflects that no compensation is required.
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 clearly states the action ('Check') and target ('current status of the browser session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_list_tabs' or 'browser_start', which might also provide status-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for checking overall session health, tab status, or other browser states, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active session. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the selector doesn't match), performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects in a browser context.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (interacting with browser elements), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or behavioral traits to fully compensate for the missing annotations.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all parameters (selector, attribute, timeout). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of common attributes or selector best practices, so it meets 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('attribute value from an element'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_get_text or browser_get_html by focusing on attributes rather than text content or HTML structure.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the purpose implies it's for retrieving attribute values, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other get methods or mention prerequisites like requiring an active browser session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential performance implications, what happens with invisible text, how it handles multiple elements matching the selector, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks the behavioral context needed for a tool interacting with a browser.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage, and this is a relatively simple read operation, the description is minimally complete. However, for a browser interaction tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about how text extraction works, what 'visible text' means, and potential limitations. The description meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific elements' which relates to the selector parameter, but this is already covered in the schema description. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('text content from the page or specific elements'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like browser_get_html (which gets HTML) and browser_get_attribute (which gets attributes), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.
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 when to use this tool (to extract text content) versus alternatives like browser_get_html for HTML structure, but doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use scenarios or name specific sibling tools. The parameter description for 'selector' provides some implicit guidance ('If not provided, gets all visible text'), but there's no explicit comparison with other text-extraction methods or context about when this is preferred over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pressing keys and optional element targeting but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires focus, what happens if the selector isn't found, if it waits for page changes, or any error conditions. The key examples are helpful but don't constitute full behavioral transparency.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides helpful examples without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there's zero waste in the text.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (keyboard interaction in a browser), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the optional element targeting and provides key examples, but these examples are already hinted in the schema's key description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Press a keyboard key, optionally on a specific element.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like browser_type (typing text) or browser_click (mouse clicks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all keyboard-related operations that might exist in other contexts.
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 through the phrase 'optionally on a specific element,' suggesting this tool is for keyboard interactions in a browser context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like browser_type (for text input) or browser_click (for mouse actions), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the local file requirement. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this triggers form submission, handles authentication needs, manages file size limits, or what happens on upload failure. The timeout parameter hints at asynchronous behavior but isn't explained.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a critical note. Both sentences earn their place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the note into the main statement. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
For a 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about side effects, error conditions, and integration with other browser tools to be truly complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the local file requirement for 'file_path', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.
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 specific action ('upload a file') and target resource ('to a file input element'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type. It precisely identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 file uploads to web forms via file input elements, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_type for text input or browser_click for button interactions. It mentions a prerequisite (file must exist locally) but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions supported selector types but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if element not found), whether it waits for element visibility, or any side effects like page navigation. For a browser interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by supporting information and concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The examples are directly relevant and enhance understanding without verbosity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (browser interaction with 4 parameters), no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core action and selector examples but misses important behavioral context like error conditions, waiting behavior, or interaction consequences that would be valuable for an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds examples for the 'selector' parameter (CSS, XPath, text formats) which provides helpful context beyond the schema's generic description, but doesn't add meaningful semantics for other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Click on an element') and resource ('on the page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_hover, browser_press, or browser_type. The first sentence directly communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 through examples of selector types (CSS, XPath, text) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_press (for keyboard) or browser_hover. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions execution 'in the page context' but doesn't specify security implications, error handling, performance impact, or whether it requires a loaded page. This is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary JavaScript.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise, relevant examples. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary JavaScript) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't cover safety, errors, or dependencies. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the schema covers parameters adequately.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'script' parameter fully. The description adds minimal value through examples that illustrate possible script content, but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or best practices beyond what the schema states.
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 specific action ('Execute JavaScript in the page context') and the outcome ('return the result'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform navigation, interaction, or content extraction rather than script execution. The examples reinforce this purpose by showing typical JavaScript operations.
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 through examples (e.g., accessing document properties, querying elements), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_get_html or browser_get_text for content extraction. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not cover important traits such as whether it requires an existing browser session, what happens if no URL is provided (e.g., opens a blank page), error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Open a new browser tab and switch to it') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like prerequisites (e.g., requires an active browser session) or side effects, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'URL to open in the new tab'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format requirements or default behavior when null. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 specific action ('Open a new browser tab and switch to it'), which directly addresses the verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'browser_switch_tab' (which switches to an existing tab) and 'browser_navigate' (which navigates within the current tab), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage when a new tab is needed and switching to it is required, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_navigate' for in-tab navigation or 'browser_switch_tab' for existing tabs. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the three selection methods (value, label, index) but doesn't disclose important behaviors like whether it waits for page updates after selection, what happens if multiple options match, error conditions, or interaction with JavaScript-driven dropdowns. The description is functional but lacks operational transparency.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (dropdown interaction with multiple selection methods), no annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter approach but lacks important behavioral context that would help an agent use it effectively in real scenarios. The output schema existence means return values don't need description, but operational guidance is sparse.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the three selection methods (value, label, index) which correspond to parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets 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 clearly states the specific action ('Select an option from a dropdown') and identifies the target resource ('<select> element'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type by focusing specifically on dropdown interaction, not general clicking or typing.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for dropdown selection) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It implies usage for <select> elements but doesn't compare to other selection methods or sibling tools that might handle similar UI interactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (list tabs with URLs and titles) but does not mention behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active browser session, potential performance impacts, or how it handles errors. This leaves gaps in understanding operational context.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all open tabs') and adds necessary detail ('with their URLs and titles') without any waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It specifies what is listed (tabs, URLs, titles), and since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. However, it lacks context on prerequisites like an active browser session, which could be helpful.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but this is appropriate as there are no parameters to document. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.
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 specific action ('List all open tabs') and the resources returned ('with their URLs and titles'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_switch_tab or browser_close_tab that manipulate tabs rather than list them. It uses precise verbs and specifies the scope (all open tabs), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 by stating 'List all open tabs,' suggesting it should be used when needing to enumerate tabs, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_status or browser_switch_tab. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving some ambiguity in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (waiting for download completion and returning file path) but lacks details about error handling (e.g., what happens if no download starts), file management (e.g., where files are saved), or system dependencies. It adds basic context but misses important behavioral aspects.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides critical usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (monitoring asynchronous downloads), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and sequencing but could better address behavioral nuances like what constitutes a 'download' or failure modes.
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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (timeout), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but since there's only one optional parameter with good schema documentation, the minimal impact justifies a 4 rather than a 3.
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 specific action ('Wait for a download to start and complete') and the resource/outcome ('returning the downloaded file path'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on download monitoring rather than navigation, interaction, or other browser operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before triggering the download action.' This tells the agent the proper sequence and context for using this tool relative to other actions that might initiate downloads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: creates a cloud sandbox, installs Chrome, launches browser, establishes remote control connection, and has prerequisite sequencing. However, it doesn't mention potential costs, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if called multiple times. The description adds useful context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
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?
Perfectly structured with two sentences: first states the core purpose, second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (creates cloud infrastructure), lack of annotations, but presence of output schema, the description does well but has gaps. It explains the prerequisite nature and what gets created, but doesn't address potential failures, costs, or what the output contains. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but more behavioral context would help.
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 description doesn't mention the timeout parameter at all, but with 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the baseline is high. The schema fully documents the timeout parameter, so the description doesn't need to compensate. However, it could have explained why timeout matters for browser readiness, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
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 specific action ('Start a new browser session'), the resource ('in a Daytona sandbox'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's a prerequisite for all other browser tools. It goes beyond the tool name to explain what the session creation entails: cloud sandbox with Chrome, browser launch, and remote control connection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Must be called before using any other browser tools.' This provides clear contextual guidance about its prerequisite role in the workflow, distinguishing it from all sibling tools that require an active session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's actions (stopping the browser and cleaning up the sandbox) and the outcome (freeing up resources), which are critical for understanding this destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like losing unsaved data or session state.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and resource, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the outcome, which is sufficient for a cleanup operation. The output schema will handle return values, so no need to describe them here.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('stop', 'clean up') and identifies the resource ('browser', 'Daytona sandbox'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_start, browser_status, and browser_close_tab by focusing on termination and cleanup rather than initialization, monitoring, or tab management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this when you're done using the browser') and implicitly suggests alternatives (e.g., use other browser tools while active, avoid calling prematurely). This clearly differentiates it from siblings that perform actions during browser usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

playwright-daytona-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-daytona-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesmurdza/playwright-daytona-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesmurdza/playwright-daytona-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![playwright-daytona-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesmurdza/playwright-daytona-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jamesmurdza/playwright-daytona-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamesmurdza/playwright-daytona-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server