Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fast Browser MCP

Fast Browser MCP

by kqlio67
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_list_webmcp_tools

List all WebMCP tools exposed by the current webpage via navigator.modelContext.getTools().

Instructions

List all WebMCP tools exposed by the current webpage via navigator.modelContext.getTools().

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_list_webmcp_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read mechanism (navigator.modelContext.getTools()), which implies a non-mutating enumeration, but says nothing about what the returned entries contain, or what happens when the page exposes no WebMCP tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action, the scope, and the API in one pass. Nothing needs trimming.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only contract an agent has, and it omits the return format (tool names/descriptions/input schemas) and the natural follow-up step of invoking a listed tool via browser_execute_webmcp_tool. Adequate but leaves workflow 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not confuse matters by implying hidden inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (WebMCP tools exposed by the current webpage), and even names the underlying API (navigator.modelContext.getTools()). The scope "current webpage" distinguishes it from a generic tool listing, but it never names its obvious sibling browser_execute_webmcp_tool, so the reader must infer the relationship.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the discovery step before browser_execute_webmcp_tool, but the description never says to call this first or when not to bother. No prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., page must expose modelContext) are stated.

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