Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FireKey MCP Server

FireKey MCP Server

by partnerhbhl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_active

Lists currently running browser profiles and their WebSocket endpoints to help identify active sessions.

Instructions

List currently running browser profiles with their WebSocket endpoints.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profile_idNoFilter by specific profile ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and reveals that WebSocket endpoints are part of the output, which adds value beyond the tool name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core behavior and output key detail without any wasted words. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the result includes. It could be slightly more explicit about how this relates to sibling tools like profile_list, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, profile_id, with a clear description ('Filter by specific profile ID'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('currently running browser profiles') and adds a distinguishing detail ('WebSocket endpoints') that separates it from sibling tools like profile_list. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'currently running' provides clear context for when to use this tool, distinguishing it from tools that list all profiles or manage browser state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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