softglaze-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List macros

list_macros

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available browser macros with IDs, names, descriptions, and step counts so you can review them before choosing one to inspect or use. Read-only.

Instructions

Lists the macros you can see: id, name, description and number of steps. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_macros"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" sentence adds nothing beyond structured data. What the description does add is the scope note "you can see", which hints that results are permission-filtered — useful context an annotation cannot express, though it is not elaborated (no pagination or result-size behavior).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a two-word addendum; the payload is visible immediately. The "Read-only" clause is redundant with the annotations and is the one line that does not earn its place.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and its visibility scope, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the missing distinction from get_macro/run_macro keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the macros") and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, step count), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from sibling get_macro or run_macro, leaving the agent to infer that this is the bulk-index operation.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusion; the description never says to use this to discover macro ids before calling get_macro or run_macro. The phrase "you can see" implies a visibility scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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