Creates a named Chrome tab group and makes it the target for all later calls, so each task's browsing stays isolated and organized.
Start a task: create a named Chrome tab group and make it the target for every later call. One group per task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Initial URL, default about:blank. | |
| color | No | grey|blue|red|yellow|green|pink|purple|cyan|orange | |
| title | Yes | Short task name shown on the group. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it creates a tab group and redirects later calls to it. However, it omits failure behavior, whether an existing active group is replaced, permissions, and what is returned.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scoping rule. There is no wasted wording.
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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential action and subsequent-call targeting clearly. It leaves some lifecycle details unstated, such as behavior when a group already exists or how the group is later ended.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents title, url, and color. The description reinforces that the group is named and becomes the target, but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource: create a named Chrome tab group. It also explains scope, making the group the target for every later call, which distinguishes it from siblings like browser_group_end and browser_groups.
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: "Start a task" and "One group per task," implying it should be called at task beginning. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare it to browser_group_end, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.