Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fast Browser MCP

Fast Browser MCP

by kqlio67
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_grant_permissions

Grant or reset browser permissions for an origin, such as notifications, clipboardReadWrite, and geolocation, to enable or revoke site access during automation.

Instructions

Grant or reset browser permissions (e.g. notifications, clipboardReadWrite, geolocation) for an origin.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_grant_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resetNoReset all granted permissions
originNoTarget origin (optional)
permissionsNoList of permissions to grant (e.g. ['clipboardReadWrite', 'notifications'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about persistence (session vs profile), whether grants survive navigation, or whether reset wipes all permissions or only those for the origin. For a state-mutating permission tool 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and scope first and no filler. It is efficient, though it could carry one more clause of behavioral context at the same length.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the definition is only minimally adequate. It explains intent but leaves the reset semantics and the return/state behavior for an agent to infer.

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 three parameters are already documented, and the description's permission examples merely echo the schema's own examples. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb pair (grant/reset) and resource (browser permissions) scoped to an origin, which separates it from generic browser tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 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?

It says what the tool does but never when to reach for it over neighbors like browser_set_geolocation or browser_clipboard, nor does it explain the grant-vs-reset choice beyond the parameter name. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools