Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fast Browser MCP

Fast Browser MCP

by kqlio67
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_network_throttling

Emulate offline, slow 3G, fast 3G, 4G, or custom bandwidth and latency to test how web apps perform under constrained network conditions.

Instructions

Emulate network profiles ('offline', 'slow3g', 'fast3g', '4g', 'none') or custom bandwidth and latency.

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_network_throttling"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latencyNoLatency in milliseconds
offlineNo
profileNonone
upload_throughputNoBytes per second
download_throughputNoBytes per second

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 falls short. It does not disclose whether the setting is global or per-tab, whether it persists across navigations, whether it must be reset, or that it mutates browser network conditions for all subsequent requests.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key inputs. No filler, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

For a stateful, 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits scope (tab vs global), persistence, reset semantics, and interaction with the related CPU throttling tool.

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 coverage is 60%, so the description's enumeration of profile values is partially redundant with the enum, but naming 'custom bandwidth and latency' clarifies the latency/download_throughput/upload_throughput intent. It adds some meaning over the schema without fully documenting the units or offline flag 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?

States a specific verb ('Emulate') and resource (network profiles/bandwidth/latency), and enumerates the profile values. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling browser_set_cpu_throttling, which shares the throttling concept.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_set_cpu_throttling or browser_performance_metrics, nor any mention of how to reset throttling back to normal ('none'). The agent is left to infer that this is a stateful emulation toggle.

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