Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chat-export-server

chat-export-server

by svergio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browsers_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows the bound browser's ID, connection state, and recent alerts so you can check health and permissions without listing all browsers.

Instructions

Show the currently bound browserId, connection state, and recent alerts. Prefer over browsers_list when you already bound a browser and only need health/permissions.

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": "browsers_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned signals (bound browserId, connection state, recent alerts), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits what happens when no browser is bound, keeping it short of 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states what is returned, the second routes the agent away from the wrong sibling. Front-loaded with the payload description before the alternative.

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 no-argument status tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields and the sibling alternative is close to complete. The only gap is the unbound-browser case, which the guidance's own precondition raises but does not resolve.

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 per the baseline there is no parameter meaning to explain and nothing for the description to compensate for. The empty schema is consistent with the description's implication that the call needs no arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Show") and concrete resources: the bound browserId, connection state, and recent alerts. It also explicitly positions itself against browsers_list, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear selection rule: prefer this over browsers_list when a browser is already bound and only health/permissions matter. The positive condition is explicit, though it doesn't say what to do if nothing is bound yet (presumably browsers_list or browsers_bind).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools