Check current browser state by retrieving the page URL, title, and list of open tabs. Use this to confirm if a browser session is active before proceeding.
Report browser state: current page URL, title, and open tab list.
Use this first if you are unsure whether a browser is running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reports state, implying it is non-destructive, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe what happens if no browser is running (e.g., error vs. empty response). This is a minor gap for a status-check 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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every word earns its place.
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 simplicity (0 params, output schema present) and the clear scope, the description is largely complete. It does not detail error behavior for a missing browser, but this is a minor omission for a status tool that likely returns a clear signal.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. There is nothing to add; the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.
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 states the verb 'Report' and the resource 'browser state' with specific details (current page URL, title, open tab list). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like browser_tabs by its scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 description explicitly provides a usage scenario: 'Use this first if you are unsure whether a browser is running.' This gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.