Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chrome-use

chrome-use

by leeguooooo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

chrome_use_confirm

Resolve a browser action held for confirmation—payment, purchase, sensitive site, download, or password field—by waiting for user approval in the extension or withdrawing the request.

Instructions

Answer an action the CLI held with confirmation_required (a sensitive site, a payment card field, a purchase, or a rule the user or their organization set, such as downloads or password fields). Tell the user what you were about to do and where first. With approval: user, only the user can allow it in the chrome-use extension; this call then waits up to 40s for their choice and runs the action if they allowed it. decline: true withdraws the request.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe confirmation_id from the held action.
declineNoWithdraw the request instead (chrome-use deny).
sessionNoIsolated session name (chrome-use --session <name>). Each session gets its own tab group, browser tab and element refs. Omit it unless several agents share ONE MCP server — the session is otherwise derived per agent automatically. When you do share a server with sibling agents, pass a name unique to you on every call, or you will drive their tabs and invalidate their refs.
timeoutMsNoKill the underlying chrome-use process if it hasn't responded after this many ms (default 30000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.275

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses the human-in-the-loop dependency ('only the user can allow it'), the bounded wait (~40s), and the 30s default process kill. The gap is the outcome side: it doesn't say what the tool returns when the user declines or the wait times out, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the triggering condition comes first, the instruction to inform the user second, then the approval and decline semantics. Every clause carries information, though the single run-on parenthetical of rule examples is heavier than it needs to be.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description has to cover safety, prerequisites and behavior, and it does: it identifies the human approval requirement, the blocking window, and the decline path. The missing piece is post-decision behavior (return/error when declined or timed out), which an agent calling without an output schema would benefit from knowing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including id, decline, session and timeoutMs. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that: it reinforces that decline withdraws rather than answers the request, and mentions the 40s wait alongside the 30s default timeout, a nuance the schema does not explain. Not enough added semantics to push above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it answers a held action that the CLI flagged with confirmation_required. It then enumerates the exact trigger classes (sensitive site, payment card field, purchase, user/org rule such as downloads or password fields), which is enough to separate it from every chrome_use_* sibling, all of which are ordinary browser actions.

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?

Explicit about when to call and how: tell the user what you were about to do and where before asking, then only the user can approve in the extension. The decline path is stated directly ('decline: true withdraws the request'), and the fact that the call blocks waiting for a human choice is called out, so the agent knows not to treat it as a fire-and-forget action.

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