Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vouh-chronos-mcp

vouh-chronos-mcp

by urielhgb7-arch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Capturer un site (vidéo + timeline)

capture_site

Captures a website in Chromium by opening its URL, running scripted interactions, and recording .webm video plus an instrumented timeline for motion analysis.

Instructions

Ouvre l'URL dans Chromium (Playwright), joue un scénario d'interaction, enregistre la vidéo .webm et la timeline instrumentée.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "permission_confirmed": "<permission_confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "capture_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL complète du site à capturer (http:// ou https://)
nameYesNom court de la capture (^[a-z0-9_-]{1,48}$)
deviceNoAppareil Playwright à émuler (défaut : 'Desktop Chrome')Desktop Chrome
scenarioNoScénario d'interaction optionnel (DSL §4.4)
throttleNoBridage CPU / réseau optionnel via CDP (§3.6)
duration_msNoDurée maximale du scénario en ms (1000–300000 soit jusqu'à 5 min, défaut : 120000 / 2 min)
explore_pagesNoSi true, visite et fait défiler aussi les pages principales du menu de navigation
reduced_motionNoPréférence media reduced-motion (défaut : 'no-preference')
permission_confirmedYesDoit être true : confirme l'autorisation d'analyser ce site (§8, §13)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the underlying mechanism (Playwright-driven Chromium) and the two artifacts produced, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits where files are written, whether the run is headless, any side effects on the target site, and the authorization requirement that the schema flags as mandatory.

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 dense sentence with three well-ordered clauses, front-loaded with the browser launch and ending with the produced artifacts. Nothing is redundant and no padding is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with nine parameters, nested scenario objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the return artifacts and their locations and the permission gate. It leaves the agent to infer all of that from the schema alone.

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 100%, so every parameter including the scenario DSL and throttle object is already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about scenario steps, throttling, or the explore_pages behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb sequence and resource: opens the URL in Chromium via Playwright, plays an interaction scenario, and records a .webm video plus an instrumented timeline. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_frames, extract_frames, or compare_captures.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the analysis-focused siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the implicit 'capture before analysis' reading of the name. The permission_confirmed requirement is only documented in the schema, not in the description.

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