Skip to main content
Glama

Setup Downloads

setup_downloads

Allow and redirect browser downloads to a specified directory before clicking download links, preventing silent blocks. Pair with wait_for_download to manage completion.

Instructions

Allow + redirect downloads to dir. Call BEFORE click that downloads (else silent block). Pair w/ wait_for_download.

Ex: setup_downloads('t0', '/tmp/dl') → {"download_dir":"/tmp/dl"}

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": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>",
      "download_dir": "<download_dir>"
    },
    "name": "setup_downloads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idYes
download_dirYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the critical failure mode: downloads are silently blocked if setup is not called first. It also gives the return shape, though it does not explain persistence or directory edge cases.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and precondition, and uses a compact example without filler. Every sentence adds operational value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it still provides an example response. It is nearly complete for invocation, with only minor gaps around parameter meaning and directory requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `download_dir` is the redirect target and the example demonstrates both arguments, but it does not explain what `tab_id` identifies or whether the directory must already exist.

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 action and resource: allowing and redirecting downloads to a directory. It is distinguishable from `wait_for_download` by its setup role, though the phrasing is terse and does not explicitly mention the tab scoping in prose.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: call before the click that downloads, otherwise the download is silently blocked. It also names the paired tool `wait_for_download`, so the agent knows both ordering and the follow-up alternative.

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