Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
moonlighting-mcp

moonlighting-mcp

by xinyuzjj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_handle_dialog

Destructive

Accept or dismiss browser dialogs, including supplying text for prompt dialogs.

Instructions

Handle a dialog

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": {
      "accept": "<accept>"
    },
    "name": "browser_handle_dialog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
acceptYesWhether to accept the dialog.
promptTextNoThe text of the prompt in case of a prompt dialog.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the main safety aspect. However, the description adds no detail about side effects, such as submitting a form or canceling a prompt, beyond what the parameter names imply. It does not clearly disclose the consequences of accepting or rejecting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short and lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified. It is terse but not informative enough to guide an agent effectively, similar to a placeholder like 'Process'.

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?

No output schema or additional context is provided. The description does not explain what happens after handling the dialog, how the parameters interact, or any post-conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'accept' (boolean) and 'promptText' (string for prompt dialogs). The description does not add extra meaning, but the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Handle a dialog' identifies the action and resource but is vague. It does not specify the type of dialog (alert, confirm, prompt) or the precise effect, though the 'accept' parameter implies accept/dismiss. It is distinct from sibling tools, but the purpose is under-specified.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, such as after a dialog appears or in contrast to other browser actions. The description gives no context for the appropriate situation.

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