Close every tab this server opened—on a given Chrome debug port or all ports it used—to clean up browser sessions.
Close every tab this server opened (on a port, or all ports it used).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | Chrome debug port. Give it to browser_launch/browser_open once; tab tools find the port from the tab. Never 9222/9223 unless the human said so: those are people's logged-in profiles. |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the key scope constraint that only server-opened tabs are closed, and that omitting the port closes across all ports used, but it does not describe irreversible effects, permission needs, or what happens to unrelated tabs.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The core action and the port/all-ports distinction are both communicated efficiently.
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 simple one-parameter cleanup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action, scope, and default port behavior. It could be stronger with an explicit note about safety around human browser profiles, but the schema already includes that warning.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the port parameter is already well documented, including its warning about 9222/9223. The description still adds useful semantics by clarifying that port is optional and that omission means closing across all ports this server used.
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 (close), a precise resource (every tab this server opened), and scope behavior (on a port, or all ports it used). It distinguishes itself from the broader browser_close sibling by emphasizing that it targets only tabs opened by this server.
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 gives clear usage context: cleanup of tabs opened by this server, optionally narrowed to one port or applied to all ports it used. It does not explicitly name browser_close as the alternative for closing a single tab, but the scope is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.