SoftGlaze Browser MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a profile

create_profile

Create an isolated browser profile with a generated OS/engine fingerprint and optional proxy, group, start URL, tags, and notes. Proxy settings set timezone, language, and location.

Instructions

Creates one profile. SoftGlaze generates its fingerprint for the chosen OS and engine. Optional: group, proxy (id from list_proxies), start URL, notes, tags. Timezone, language and location follow the proxy. Asks the user first. Never sets passwords or cookies.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`os`	No	Default host: the OS of this computer, which is the most consistent choice.
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No
`group`	No	Group id or exact name.
`notes`	No
`browser`	No	Default chromium. Page tools and macros need chromium.
`proxyId`	No
`startUrl`	No
`deviceClass`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the basic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description contributes real value: the fingerprint is generated rather than supplied, timezone/language/location are derived from the proxy, and the tool asks the user first. "Never sets passwords or cookies" usefully bounds scope. What remains unclear is what "asks the user first" actually gates.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then optionals, then guardrails — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The telegraphic optional-parameter list reads a little like a schema restatement but is compact enough to justify itself.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the important invisible behavior (fingerprint, proxy-derived locale, user confirmation). It is still incomplete on what comes back after creation, whether names must be unique, and the meaning of deviceClass.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description should carry more weight than it does. It names five optional fields and adds one real semantic link (proxy id comes from list_proxies, and locale follows the proxy), but says nothing about deviceClass, name constraints, or the os/browser defaults that the schema only partially documents.

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?

"Creates one profile" gives a specific verb and resource, and "one" implicitly separates it from batch_generate_profiles. It also names the fingerprint-generation side effect, so the agent knows creation does more than insert a row. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by the optional-field list and the pointer to list_proxies for the proxy id, which is genuinely useful routing. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. versus batch_generate_profiles or create_group), so the agent must infer alternatives from names alone.

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