Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ruishu MCP

Ruishu MCP

by markx520
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Navigate To URL

navigate_to

Directs a browser to a target URL, injects a telemetry probe, waits for dynamic challenge verification, and returns real-time Ruishu protection status.

Instructions

Automated Navigation & Monitoring. Directly commands the browser to navigate to a target URL, automatically injects the zero-interference telemetry probe, waits for dynamic challenge verification, and returns the real-time Ruishu protection status.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "navigate_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe target website URL (must start with http:// or https://)
wait_timeout_msNoWait timeout in milliseconds for page load and Ruishu challenge resolution (default: 5000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: it injects a telemetry probe into the page, blocks until a challenge is verified, and returns protection status. That discloses side effects and latency behavior the annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing timeout/failure behavior when the challenge never resolves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single sentence with the core action front-loaded, which is good, but it opens with a marketing-style label and packs in jargon ('zero-interference telemetry probe', 'Ruishu protection status') that the agent must decode. Nothing is grossly redundant, but the density hurts scannability.

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?

For a two-parameter navigation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, wait behavior, and the return value (real-time protection status). The gap is failure/timeout semantics and how this fits relative to sibling tools.

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 100%, so both url and wait_timeout_ms are already documented with formats and defaults. The description only echoes the URL and says it 'waits for dynamic challenge verification', which loosely corresponds to the timeout parameter without adding any new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb ('navigate') and resource ('target URL') plus the extra effects: telemetry probe injection, challenge wait, and status return. It does not name any sibling (e.g., execute_page_action or check_ruishu_status) to differentiate, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 or when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the Ruishu hook must be initialized first or whether check_ruishu_status should follow. The 'Automated Navigation & Monitoring' label implies a workflow entry point but states nothing explicitly.

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