softglaze-browser-mcp

by softglazee

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Create a group

create_group

Creates an empty browser profile group after user approval; requires a name and optional hex color.

Instructions

Creates an empty profile group. 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>"
    },
    "name": "create_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`color`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's added value is the confirmation step ("Asks the user first") and the fact that the new group is empty — both behaviors not encoded in annotations. It omits what happens on a duplicate name or what identifier is returned, which is why this isn't a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the behavioral caveat follows. The phrase "Asks the user first" is compressed to the point of slight ambiguity about what prompts it, but it does earn its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and the confirmation safeguard. It does not cover uniqueness constraints, error behavior on duplicates, or what the caller receives, which an agent needs before deciding to invoke it.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two parameters, yet it mentions neither `name` nor `color`. The schema's constraints (maxLength 80, hex pattern) hint at formats, but nothing explains whether color is optional or what name uniqueness rules apply.

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 an empty profile group" names a specific verb and resource, and "empty" distinguishes it from operations that populate a group (e.g., move_profiles_to_group). It never explicitly contrasts itself with create_profile or list_groups, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus create_profile, list_groups, or move_profiles_to_group. "Asks the user first" describes internal confirmation behavior rather than a use-case condition, so the agent gets no routing signal.

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