Skip to main content
Glama

browser_visual_check

Find common UI problems automatically—no baseline required. Include accessibility and responsive checks as needed.

Instructions

No-baseline automated UI issue scan: scans the current page for common UI problems (invisible text, overlapping elements, z-index occlusion, small click targets, blank regions, overflow, missing image alt, contrast issues, responsive breakpoints) and returns a natural-language issue list.

中文详情:

  • 用途:无需基线直接扫描当前页面常见 UI 问题(文字不可见、元素重叠、z-index 遮挡、点击区域过小、空白区域、溢出、图片 alt 缺失、对比度不足、响应式断点等),输出自然语言描述的问题清单

  • 何时使用:UI 走查时快速发现问题;上线前 UI 健康检查;多 viewport 响应式验证;可访问性基础扫描(对比度/alt 缺失)时

  • 输出:{ ok: boolean, totalIssues: number, issues: array, summary: string } — 每项含 { severity, category, description, selector, recommendation }

  • 参数:

    • includeAccessibility (boolean, 可选):是否包含可访问性检查(图片 alt 缺失、对比度检测),默认 true

    • includeResponsive (boolean, 可选):是否包含响应式检查,默认 false

    • viewports (array, 可选):响应式检查的 viewport 列表,可选 mobile/tablet/desktop,仅当 includeResponsive=true 时生效,默认 ["mobile","tablet"]

    • severity (string, 可选):最低报告级别,可选 blocking/major/minor,默认 major

  • 错误:浏览器未启动抛出 'Browser not launched';viewport 无效抛出 'Invalid viewport'

  • 示例:{"includeAccessibility":true,"includeResponsive":true,"viewports":["mobile","desktop"],"severity":"major"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
severityNo最低报告级别:blocking(只报阻断级)/ major(报阻断+严重级)/ minor(全部报告),默认majormajor
viewportsNo响应式检查的viewport列表,仅当 includeResponsive=true 时生效
includeResponsiveNo是否包含响应式检查,默认false
includeAccessibilityNo是否包含可访问性检查(图片alt缺失、对比度检测),默认true
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavioral traits: it scans the current page without a baseline, returns a natural-language issue list, and lists error conditions ('Browser not launched', 'Invalid viewport'). It does not explicitly state non-modification or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied.

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?

The description is structured with an English summary followed by Chinese details in bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core concept. While slightly long, every section adds value and the formatting aids readability. A more concise English-only version could be constructed, but the current structure is functional.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the output format ({ ok, totalIssues, issues, summary }), issue categories, parameters with defaults, error messages, and an example. This provides complete contextual information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant extra meaning beyond the schema, including detailed parameter descriptions in Chinese, conditional logic (e.g., viewports only effective when includeResponsive=true), and an example invocation. This justifies a score above baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a no-baseline automated UI issue scan, listing specific types of problems it detects. The name and description directly convey the verb ('scan') and resource ('current page') and distinguish it from sibling tools like browser_visual_compare and browser_a11y_check.

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?

The description includes a dedicated 'when to use' section covering UI walkthroughs, pre-deploy checks, responsive verification, and accessibility scanning. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like browser_a11y_check for dedicated accessibility testing.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/validpilot/ai-verify-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server