Check whether the Chrome extension is connected and identify the targeted tab. Use this first when behavior is unexpected to distinguish 'no extension connected' from 'no tab attached'.
Report bridge + extension connection state and the currently targeted tab. Call this first if anything behaves unexpectedly: it distinguishes "no extension connected" from "no tab attached".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds behavioral insight by explaining that the tool reports state and differentiates between two connection failure scenarios. This is valuable context beyond the structured hint, and no contradiction exists. It does not, however, describe the output format or other edge cases, which would have made it fully transparent.
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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed directly by a practical usage directive. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the purpose immediately graspable.
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-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, and what distinction it can make. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 zero parameters, the schema is trivially 100% covered and there is nothing to document. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not attempt to invent or describe any parameter semantics. This is appropriate for a stateless diagnostic tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bridge + extension connection state and the currently targeted tab'). It goes beyond a generic statement by distinguishing two failure modes ('no extension connected' vs 'no tab attached'), which clarifies exactly what the tool reveals. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that observe, navigate, or act on the browser.
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 says 'Call this first if anything behaves unexpectedly', giving a clear when-to-use instruction. It explains the diagnostic value by describing what it distinguishes, but it does not mention alternative tools by name or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear, yet excludes explicit exclusions or sibling comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.