jev-ultrafast-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_goal

Complete a full browser task in a single call: supply a URL and goal, and the browser is driven to the finish with automated verification of the final page state.

Instructions

Hand a whole browser task over. Needs a decision-model key.

This is the entry point for browser work, not an optimisation on top of the manual loop. Pass url and the goal and the page is opened and driven to the end here: one call, one host turn, instead of a turn per click.

Leave url out when the task continues from a page an earlier step left behind; the goal then runs against whatever the session is already showing.

Each step costs one request (operation + every target head in a single speculative fan-out). verify runs browser_assert-style checks on the final page, so the result is a fact rather than a model's claim of success.

The key is TYPESAFE_API_KEY, or OPENROUTER_API_KEY when TYPESAFE_BASE_URL points at https://openrouter.ai/api/alpha/decisions -- same model, same contract, no TypeSafe account needed. Reading a page needs no key at all, so when no key is set the handoff is unavailable while browser_open, browser_observe and browser_act keep working.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	No
`goal`	Yes
`verify`	No
`session`	No	default
`verbose`	No
`max_steps`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5Sep 20, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / url
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Url",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: cost per step (one request per operation and fan-out), verification behavior (runs browser_assert-style checks for factual results), and API key requirements (TYPESAFE_API_KEY or OPENROUTER_API_KEY) as well as the no-key case. It adds context beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only and open world), such as the implication of non-read-only via key requirements, though not explicitly stating mutability or potential side effects.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-line purpose, then explaining the entry-point nature, URL omission, cost model, and API key details. Each paragraph adds distinct value. It's somewhat long but every sentence carries important information for an agent deciding and calling the tool. No fluff.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no schema description, output schema exists), the description covers most critical aspects: when to use, key requirements, cost implications, and verification. It doesn't detail all parameters (e.g., `session`, `max_steps`) but those are lower-stakes, and the output schema likely describes return values. It's comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke correctly without major gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% coverage on parameters, so the description must compensate. The description explains `url` (optional, for continuation) and `verify` (runs checks on final page), but does not explain `goal`, `session`, `verbose`, or `max_steps`. However, it covers the two most semantically significant parameters, and with 6 parameters, the coverage rate is high enough, though not complete, to warrant 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 tool's purpose: to hand over a whole browser task, opening a URL and driving the page to completion in one call. It distinguishes itself from the manual loop (browser_act per click) and explicitly names the entry-point nature. The phrase 'Hand a whole browser task over' is a strong verb+resource statement.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: as the entry point for browser work, not an optimization on the manual loop. It also tells the agent when to omit `url` (when continuing from an existing session) and contrasts with siblings by saying reading a page needs no key, while handoff is unavailable without a key. This effectively routes to alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server