Skip to main content
Glama

runDebuggerMode

Debug application issues by running debugger mode to identify and resolve problems in browser-based applications.

Instructions

Run debugger mode to debug an issue in our application

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the MCP tool 'runDebuggerMode'. The inline handler returns static text instructions guiding the AI on how to debug application issues using other tools and adding logs.
    server.tool(
      "runDebuggerMode",
      "Run debugger mode to debug an issue in our application",
      async () => ({
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `
          Please follow this exact sequence to debug an issue in our application:
      
      1. Reflect on 5-7 different possible sources of the problem
      2. Distill those down to 1-2 most likely sources
      3. Add additional logs to validate your assumptions and track the transformation of data structures throughout the application control flow before we move onto implementing the actual code fix
      4. Use the "getConsoleLogs", "getConsoleErrors", "getNetworkLogs" & "getNetworkErrors" tools to obtain any newly added web browser logs
      5. Obtain the server logs as well if accessible - otherwise, ask me to copy/paste them into the chat
      6. Deeply reflect on what could be wrong + produce a comprehensive analysis of the issue
      7. Suggest additional logs if the issue persists or if the source is not yet clear
      8. Once a fix is implemented, ask for approval to remove the previously added logs
    
      Note: DO NOT run any of our audits (runAccessibilityAudit, runPerformanceAudit, runBestPracticesAudit, runSEOAudit, runNextJSAudit) when in debugging mode unless explicitly asked to do so or unless you switch to audit mode.
    `,
          },
        ],
      })
    );
  • The handler function for runDebuggerMode tool, which provides a predefined message with debugging instructions.
      async () => ({
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `
          Please follow this exact sequence to debug an issue in our application:
      
      1. Reflect on 5-7 different possible sources of the problem
      2. Distill those down to 1-2 most likely sources
      3. Add additional logs to validate your assumptions and track the transformation of data structures throughout the application control flow before we move onto implementing the actual code fix
      4. Use the "getConsoleLogs", "getConsoleErrors", "getNetworkLogs" & "getNetworkErrors" tools to obtain any newly added web browser logs
      5. Obtain the server logs as well if accessible - otherwise, ask me to copy/paste them into the chat
      6. Deeply reflect on what could be wrong + produce a comprehensive analysis of the issue
      7. Suggest additional logs if the issue persists or if the source is not yet clear
      8. Once a fix is implemented, ask for approval to remove the previously added logs
    
      Note: DO NOT run any of our audits (runAccessibilityAudit, runPerformanceAudit, runBestPracticesAudit, runSEOAudit, runNextJSAudit) when in debugging mode unless explicitly asked to do so or unless you switch to audit mode.
    `,
          },
        ],
      })
    );
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs debugger mode but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it's interactive, what data it collects, if it requires specific permissions, or how it affects the application state. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Run debugger mode to debug an issue in our application'. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the outcome or scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity implied by 'debugger mode' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its interaction with the application. For a diagnostic tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Run debugger mode to debug an issue in our application', which provides a general verb ('Run debugger mode') and goal ('debug an issue'). However, it's vague about what 'debugger mode' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'runAuditMode' or 'runPerformanceAudit', which also involve running diagnostic modes. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when debugging is needed), or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'getConsoleErrors' or 'runAuditMode' that might be related. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/oenius/browser-tools-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server