Low-level action batch (JSON array string). Pass tab_id when batch includes switch_tab, close_tab, mouse_click, scroll, or keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No | Control context tab; required for switch_tab/close_tab batches | |
| timeout_ms | No | ||
| actions_json | Yes | ||
| notification_message | No | Short user-facing sentence for this action if the follow-up reply fails. Plain text only; do not mention template syntax or variable names. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral weight. It adds specific context regarding failure handling by explaining the purpose of the `notification_message` field, which is a key operational behavior of this tool.
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?
The definition is extremely concise and well-structured. It front-loads the definition of the tool ('Low-level action batch') and immediately follows with its primary operational constraint concerning contextual IDs.
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?
Given the complexity of handling JSON action batches and the constraints on context switching, the description is robust. It covers the operational requirement for context (`tab_id`) and failure notification handling. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool effectively.
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?
The schema defines `tab_id` generally, but the description provides semantic refinement by specifying that this context is required when the batch includes specific actions like 'mouse_click', 'scroll', or 'keys'. This clarifies the functional requirement of the parameter based on tool logic.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Low-level action batch' handler, indicating it performs complex, serialized tasks. It establishes a strong relationship with the specialized sibling tools by implying that sequences of operations are intended here rather than for individual steps.
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?
The existence of numerous specific sibling tools suggests that this tool should only be used for executing heterogeneous, multi-step action sequences rather than simple individual operations. The description hints at this necessity by focusing on batch execution but does not explicitly contrast it with the simpler siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.