agentic-browser-mcp

by q35888

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or data source (click, type, navigate, eval, etc.), with no overlapping purposes. Descriptions clearly differentiate between similar actions like clicking vs. typing and reading console vs. storage.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the 'browser_' prefix and snake_case, with most following a verb pattern (click, type, navigate). The tool 'browser_session' uses a noun instead of a verb, which is a minor inconsistency but still predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set covers all core browser automation tasks without unnecessary redundancy. The count is well-scoped for a comprehensive yet focused server.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers primary browser interactions: navigation, clicking, typing, reading console/storage/eval, screenshots, session management, and manual intervention. Missing features like back/forward navigation or alert handling are minor gaps but do not severely hinder typical workflows.
Average 3.7/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses session switching and default profile, but does not mention behavior like page load waiting, timeouts, errors, or return values. Critical for a navigation tool.
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?
Two short sentences, no redundant words. However, could be more structured with bullet points or separate sentences for clearer front-loading.
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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. Missing details on return values, error handling, and navigation behavior make it incomplete for reliable agent usage.
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 33% (only url described). The description adds meaning for 'profile' by explaining default behavior, but 'headless' is not addressed. Adds some value beyond schema.
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 clearly states the tool opens a URL and can switch sessions. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., browser_click, browser_type) by the action of navigation, but could be more explicit about what 'navigate' entails.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The mention of session switching gives a hint, but there is no when-not or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not mention if typing clears existing text, triggers events, or waits for element readiness. Minimal beyond the bare action.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple type action with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., page loaded) or edge cases (e.g., disabled input). Adequate but not thorough.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates that location is by role+name.
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 clearly states the verb 'type' and the resource 'input box', with a specific location strategy (role+name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_eval, but could be more explicit about the action.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_click for non-text inputs, browser_eval for custom scripts). Missing preconditions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the default save path but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting files, affecting browser state). This is insufficient for a file-saving operation.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core function. The parenthetical adds context but is somewhat redundant for an AI agent. No unnecessary words, but could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary function and default location. However, it lacks details on the output format, error cases, or behavior with/without the fullPage parameter, leaving some gaps.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters (only one boolean), and the schema description already explains the parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool takes a screenshot and saves it as a file, with a default path. It distinguishes itself by noting it is for human viewing, not for multimodal models. However, it does not explicitly specify whether it captures the current viewport or the entire page (though the parameter hints at full page).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for human consumption, not for AI interpretation, which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like browser_snapshot or browser_eval, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'read storage' but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or data scope (e.g., current page only?). This is insufficient.
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 concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and the key information (action and type) is front-loaded.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain return values, error cases, or behavior for each storage type. For a simple read tool, more context is needed for safe usage.
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 50%; the description lists the enum values for 'type' (cookies, localStorage, sessionStorage) which adds clarity. However, the optional 'url' parameter is not explained in the description (only in schema), and no additional semantics beyond enumeration are provided.
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 clearly states the action ('读取存储' meaning 'read storage') and specifies the resource type via an enum (cookies, localStorage, sessionStorage). It uniquely identifies the tool among sibling browser action tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools are all different actions, so no direct competition, but the description provides no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that headless only works with isolated, incognito is temporary, and default is real session. However, it does not cover side effects, permissions, or session lifecycle.
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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy. However, the dense Chinese phrasing may be slightly harder to parse programmatically.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of session management, the description is moderately complete. It covers core parameters and default behavior, but misses return values, error handling, and session persistence details.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of profile (real vs isolated), headless (only valid with isolated), and incognito (temporary). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema enums.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: switching/starting a browser session with different profile types. It distinguishes from sibling action tools (click, navigate, etc.). However, it could be more explicit about the difference between 'switch' and 'start'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use each profile type (real vs isolated) and conditions like headless only for isolated. But it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states logs are accumulated since session start and supports optional level filtering, but lacks details on side effects, size limits, or whether logs are cleared after reading.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key feature (optional level filter) without unnecessary words.
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 read tool with one optional parameter and no required fields, the description covers the essential: it reads logs from session start with optional filter. Missing output format or persistence details, but adequate for the complexity.
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 single parameter 'level' is defined in schema with enum values; description adds that filtering is optional, which adds context. However, it does not explain the meaning of each level value.
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?
Description clearly states the tool reads accumulated console logs from browser's F12 Console, with optional level filtering and recording from session start. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_eval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving console logs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., browser_eval for executing JS), nor any when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the locator mechanism but does not disclose behaviors like waiting, page transitions, or click outcomes. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with action and method. No wasted words. Ideal for fast agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema. Description explains input but not what happens after click (e.g., page change, return value). For a simple click, this may be sufficient, but some agents might need more.
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?
Schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds context that role comes from snapshot output and name is accessible name. This adds value beyond the schema alone.
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 clearly states the action ('click page element') and how to locate it using role and name from a snapshot. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_type (typing) and browser_navigate (navigation).
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 description implies usage context by referencing snapshot output for role and name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear for this simple action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It transparently notes that the tool can read DOM, storage, and send requests, which hints at side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that evaluation can modify page state or cause side effects beyond those mentioned.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with examples and a key caveat. Every phrase adds value, no wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does and its capabilities, but lacks details on the return format (type, serialization) and error handling. Given no output schema, this omission reduces completeness for an arbitrary-JS-execution tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a brief parameter description. The tool description adds meaningful context: examples of valid expressions, warning against arrow functions, and scope (read DOM/storage/requests), which goes beyond the schema's 'JS expression/statement'.
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 clearly states that the tool executes JS expressions on the page and returns the result, with specific examples (e.g., document.title, 1+1). It distinguishes from arrow functions and lists capabilities (read DOM/storage/send requests), differentiating it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates use for evaluating JS, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_snapshot for page state). It warns against arrow functions but does not specify when not to use it or provide context for preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 transparently describes two modes of closing (real vs isolated) and their effects (CDP disconnection, process closure), and notes automatic reconnection. This is sufficient for a close action, though some details about error cases or resource implications could enhance transparency.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no wasted words. The structure efficiently conveys the core functionality and key nuances.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and lacks annotations, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the different closing behaviors and the automatic session rebuilding. It covers the main aspects but could be slightly more complete by mentioning any potential side effects on data or state. Overall, it is well-suited for the tool's simple nature.
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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it provides context about the closing behavior that is valuable beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this standard.
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 clearly states that the tool closes the current browser session and releases resources, distinguishing between 'real' (disconnects CDP but doesn't close real Chrome) and 'isolated' (closes browser process) cases. This is a specific verb+resource pair that effectively separates it from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_click.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that the next tool call will automatically rebuild the session, providing implicit guidance on when to use the tool (when done with the session). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related actions, lacking clear usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it returns YAML text but does not disclose potential errors, performance considerations, or limitations (e.g., tree availability on all pages). Moderate transparency.
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?
Two sentences, no extraneous information. Purpose is front-loaded. Highly concise.
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 no output schema and no parameters, description covers essential aspects: return type and usage guidance. Missing error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for standard 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?
No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining return format and purpose, which is sufficient for zero-parameter tool.
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?
Clearly states it returns the ARIA accessibility tree in YAML format with role and name attributes. Explicitly links to usage with click/type tools, distinguishing it from siblings.
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?
Implies usage before click/type actions by stating 'use this to provide role+name'. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling tools makes it clear this is the only tree retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully explains behavior: returns current URL and instructions, caller must pause and wait. Could mention timeout but not essential for a simple human-wait tool.
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?
Extremely concise (two short sentences), front-loaded with the trigger condition. No wasted words.
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?
Given low complexity (one param, no output schema), the description is complete: trigger, behavior, and caller response are all covered.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'reason' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds context about why the parameter is needed but no additional semantic detail beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool is for waiting on human operation when encountering CAPTCHA/login. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser automation tools (e.g., click, navigate) by ceding control to the user.
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?
Explicitly tells when to call (when human operation required) and what the caller should do (pause terminal, prompt user, wait for reply). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agentic-browser-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/q35888/agentic-browser-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/q35888/agentic-browser-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agentic-browser-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/q35888/agentic-browser-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/q35888/agentic-browser-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/q35888/agentic-browser-mcp'

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