Skip to main content
Glama

browser_batch

Execute multiple browser tool calls in a single batch, running them sequentially and halting on the first error to return results and error count.

Instructions

Push a whole run of browser tool calls through one request rather than spending a turn on each. Every entry is {name, input}, where input is the same object you would hand that tool on its own. Entries run one after another, never in parallel, and the run halts at the first failure: you get the output of everything that finished, the error from the entry that broke, and a count of the entries that never started. The list is checked before anything touches the page, so an unknown tool name, or an attempt to put browser_batch inside itself, rejects the call outright instead of half-applying it. Batch aggressively whenever you can see two or more moves ahead - open the page, click into the search box, type the query, press Return, take a screenshot. Images come back inline among the text outputs, each labelled with the entry that produced it. Two things bite here. First, any coordinate you write in these entries, and any ref you name, come from a screenshot taken BEFORE the call or a read_page that ran before it, since nothing this batch paints is visible to you while you compose it - and once an entry navigates or reloads, every earlier ref and coordinate is stale, so end the batch there and look again. Second, every entry that acts on a page has to state tabId - inside a batch no tab is inferred, so a batch that creates a tab and then drives it must repeat that new id on each later entry. Unlike the Chrome extension, firefox-use runs no per-site permission check between entries; it drives its own automation profile. A modal dialog does still freeze the page, so clear it with firefox_dialog rather than letting the rest of the batch queue up behind it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionsYesThe ordered calls to make, one or more, run from the top down. Example: [{"name":"navigate","input":{"tabId":7,"url":"https://docs.example.org/search"}},{"name":"computer","input":{"tabId":7,"coordinate":[420,260],"action":"left_click"}},{"name":"computer","input":{"tabId":7,"text":"budget report","action":"type"}}]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Details execution order (sequential, never parallel), failure behavior (halts at first failure, returns partial output, error, and skipped count), pre-validation (rejects unknown tools and nested batches before touching the page), stale reference caveats, mandatory tabId requirement, and differences from the Chrome extension. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full transparency burden and exceeds it.

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?

The description is long but every sentence contributes essential operational detail—no filler or repetition. It is organized into a clear flow: general behavior, validation, then two specific 'bites' and an extension difference. The structure aids comprehension despite the density.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a batching tool with multiple failure modes and safety caveats, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to structure entries, what happens on failure, how validation works, tabId requirements, stale reference hazards, permission differences, and modal dialog handling. Despite no output schema, the return behavior is described sufficiently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already defines the actions array and its items, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the exact shape of each entry, provides a concrete example, clarifies that tabId must be repeated, and notes that browser_batch cannot be nested. This goes well beyond the schema's field names.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('push a whole run... through one request') and resource ('browser tool calls'), and distinguishes it from spending a turn on each call. It is immediately clear what the tool accomplishes.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use it ('whenever you can see two or more moves ahead') and contrasts with alternatives ('rather than spending a turn on each'). It also specifies when not to use it (nesting a batch, after navigation, when a modal dialog appears), leaving no ambiguity.

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