softglaze-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Warm up profiles

start_warmer

Starts cookie-warming sessions for selected browser profiles, visiting sites with scrolling and optional light clicks to build normal cookies and history; asks for confirmation and returns a runId.

Instructions

Starts the Cookie Warmer: each profile visits sites for a while (scrolling, optional light clicking) to build normal cookies and history. Default sites are a mix of popular ones. concurrency is limited by your plan. Asks the user first. Returns a runId.

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": {
      "profileIds": "<profileIds>"
    },
    "name": "start_warmer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sites`	No
`headless`	No
`profileIds`	Yes
`concurrency`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the browsing pattern (scrolling, optional light clicking), what is produced (cookies and history), the default site set, the plan-limited concurrency, a user-confirmation step, and the runId return. It does not state runtime/duration estimates or what happens to pre-existing cookies, which keeps it below 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism before defaults and constraints. Every sentence carries information, though fragments like 'concurrency is limited by your plan' sit awkwardly without naming the parameter.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does mention the runId return, which is helpful. For a 4-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no documented parameter details, however, an agent still lacks guidance on profileIds limits and headless behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the semantics. It clarifies sites (defaults to a popular mix) and concurrency (plan-limited), but says nothing about the required profileIds bounds, the headless flag, or the per-site seconds field, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Starts the Cookie Warmer') and explains the mechanism: each profile browses sites to build normal cookies and history. That goes well beyond the title, though it never contrasts itself with start_profile or the batch_* siblings, so an agent must infer which entry point fits.

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?

It gives one concrete usage condition ('Asks the user first', implying confirmation before running) and notes the plan-based concurrency cap, but offers no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit alternative such as start_profile for a plain launch.

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