SoftGlaze Browser MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Save a macro

save_macro

Create a browser automation macro or replace an existing macro’s steps by ID, with validated actions and user approval before saving.

Instructions

Creates a macro, or replaces an existing one's steps (id). Steps are data, checked by the same validator as the app's editor. Step types: goto {url}, click {selector}, type {selector, value}, keypress {key}, scroll {steps}, wait {ms}, move {selector | x,y}, hover {selector, ms}, select {selector, value, by}, waitFor {selector, state visible|hidden}, submit {selector}, check {selector, state checked|unchecked}, clear {selector}; optional: true and timeout (ms) on element steps. Use {{name}} placeholders for personal values. Asks the user first.

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>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "save_macro"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Existing macro to replace.
`name`	Yes
`steps`	Yes
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: steps are validated by the same validator as the app's editor, and the tool prompts the user for confirmation before acting. It stops short of saying whether a replace overwrites irreversibly or what a validation failure looks like.

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 create-or-replace distinction, then a dense but purposeful step-type spec. The enumeration is long but each item carries schema-level information the agent needs; nothing reads as filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could have stated what save_macro returns (e.g., the resulting macro id), which is a real gap for a create/replace tool. Otherwise the behavioral and parameter picture is thorough for a 4-parameter write 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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate — and it does, spelling out the full steps grammar (goto, click, type, waitFor, etc.), the optional/timeout flags on element steps, and the {{name}} placeholder convention for personal values. Only name and description parameters are left implicit, which is reasonable given their obviousness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a macro, or replaces an existing one's steps (id).' That covers both modes (create vs. replace-by-id) and is distinguishable from get_macro/run_macro by the write verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: supply an id to replace, omit it to create, and note that the tool 'Asks the user first'. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over run_macro or get_macro, or on prerequisites for replacing an existing macro.

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