Skip to main content
Glama
SoftGlaze Browser MCP

SoftGlaze Browser MCP

Get a macro

get_macro
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a macro's steps by ID to review its browser automation sequence. Typed values stay hidden unless placeholders, and the operation is read-only.

Instructions

One macro's steps. Typed values are hidden (they often hold passwords) unless they are {{placeholders}}. Read-only.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_macro"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing behavior the annotations do not: typed values are redacted because they often contain passwords, except {{placeholders}}. That is exactly the kind of output caveat an agent needs before relying on the returned steps.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the payload and immediately followed by the most important caveat. Slight waste in restating 'Read-only', which the annotations already establish, and the telegraphic style borders on under-specification.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (steps), what is hidden (typed values), and the safety profile. It omits how to obtain a valid id and what happens when the id is unknown or the macro is absent, leaving a real operational gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description says nothing about id — no format, no source, no validity rules. With a low-coverage schema the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies a specific resource and payload: a single macro's steps, which distinguishes it from list_macros (many macros) and run_macro/save_macro (execution and mutation). It is phrased as a fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the meaning 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_macros or run_macro, and no note on where the required id comes from. The only weak signal is 'Read-only', which implies inspection rather than execution, but the agent must infer that routing itself.

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