Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
browser-mcp-server

browser-mcp-server

by vicktor12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_screenshot

Captures a screenshot of the current page and saves it to disk so you can confirm action results or record error states.

Instructions

Tira screenshot da página atual e salva em disco. Usar para confirmar o resultado de ações ou capturar estado de erro.

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": {
      "task_description": "<task_description>"
    },
    "name": "browser_screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameNoNome do arquivo sem extensão; default: timestamp
full_pageNo
task_descriptionYesDeve conter [AGENT-BROWSER-TASK] + descrição da ação

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 says it writes to disk but never says where the file lands, whether it can overwrite an existing file, or what is returned to the caller; for a tool with a side effect on disk this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the usage trigger. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent gets back (path, image reference) and the disk-writing side effect. It does neither, and one of the three parameters is undocumented, leaving real gaps for a tool that produces an artifact.

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 coverage is 67%: filename and task_description are documented in the schema, but full_page has no description at all. The description text adds nothing about any parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented full_page flag.

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: 'Tira screenshot da página atual e salva em disco'. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like browser_navigate, browser_click, and browser_read_page, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Usar para confirmar o resultado de ações ou capturar estado de erro' gives concrete trigger conditions. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or pointers to alternatives such as browser_read_page for textual state.

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