Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fast Browser MCP

Fast Browser MCP

by kqlio67
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_system_info

Retrieve Chrome and V8 versions, User-Agent, protocol version, environment validation, and memory performance metrics to verify and diagnose browser runtime conditions.

Instructions

Get comprehensive browser information: Chrome version, V8 version, User-Agent, protocol version, environment validation, and memory performance metrics.

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_system_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 disclosure burden. It implies a read-only inspection via 'Get', but never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires an active browser connection, whether memory metrics force a GC or incur latency, or what 'environment validation' actually validates.

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 a clear verb and a colon-delimited payload list, with no filler. Everything after the colon is informative content rather than marketing language.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify the return shape, but it only lists field topics and leaves 'environment validation' undefined. It is adequate for a trivial 0-param read tool but leaves an agent unsure what the response object actually contains.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The enumerated data fields add useful color to what is returned.

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 ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive browser information') and enumerates the concrete payload: Chrome version, V8 version, User-Agent, protocol version, and memory metrics. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling browser_performance_metrics, which overlaps on the 'memory performance metrics' claim.

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 'when to use this' guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as browser_performance_metrics or browser_emulate_environment. The agent must guess whether this is a diagnostic/health-check tool or a pre-flight probe before other browser operations.

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