Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

by softallice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_get_attribute

Retrieve the value of a specified attribute from an element using its selector for browser automation.

Instructions

Get an attribute value from an element

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>",
      "attribute": "<attribute>"
    },
    "name": "browser_get_attribute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selectorYesSelector for the element
attributeYesName of the attribute to get
sessionIdNoBrowser session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), what happens if the element or attribute is missing, or the return type. This lack of explicit behavior leaves a gap.

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 sentence with no filler, efficiently front-loading the purpose. It earns its place without any wasted words.

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 getter with no output schema, the description provides only the action and target. It is minimally complete but lacks context on return values and error behavior, leaving some uncertainty for an agent. A score of 3 reflects an adequate but not rich description.

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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action clearly: 'Get an attribute value from an element'. It identifies the specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getter tools like browser_get_text or browser_get_html, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply restates the function without any context about selection.

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