Record browser actions into a named flow for later replay. Start captures clicks, fills, and scrolls; stop saves the flow to disk for reuse.
Record browser actions into a named reusable flow. mode=start begins recording (open/click/fill/press/scroll are captured with selectors); mode=stop saves the flow to disk for later replay with browser_flow_run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recording captures specific actions (open/click/fill/press/scroll) with selectors and that mode=stop saves to disk, but it does not mention potential overwrite behavior, prerequisites (like an active browser session), or error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mode details. No wasted words, and all information is relevant and ordered logically.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and mode behavior. It does not explain return values or edge cases, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'mode' parameter (start/stop and their effects) and implies 'name' is the flow identifier. This is sufficient for an agent to understand both parameters, though it could be more explicit about name constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Record') and a resource ('browser actions into a named reusable flow'). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling 'browser_flow_run' by explicitly mentioning replay, making the tool's role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear guidance on when to use mode=start vs mode=stop, and mentions the sibling tool for replay. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative recording methods, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.