softglaze-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List running profiles

list_sessions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists currently running browser profiles with uptime and whether an AI app started them, enabling read-only inspection of active sessions.

Instructions

Lists the profiles running now that you can see, with how long they have run and whether an AI app started them. 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_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence adds nothing new. However, the description does add real value beyond annotations: it discloses the return contents (run duration, AI-app origin) and the visibility scoping implied by 'that you can see', which matters for an agent reasoning about missing entries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence covering scope, returned fields, and the read-only nature, with no filler. The one redundant clause ('Read-only') duplicates an annotation but costs only two words.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what comes back and the visibility constraint. Minor gaps remain around whether non-running or inaccessible profiles are omitted, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead spends its words on what the call returns.

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 profiles currently running, plus what each entry shows (run duration, whether an AI app started it). The phrase 'running now' distinguishes it from a general profile listing like list_profiles, though the sibling is not 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 by 'running now' - an agent can infer this is the tool for live session status versus static profile inventory. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for listing all profiles, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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