Close Chrome tabs by passing tab numbers or title/URL text; list tabs first, then close chosen ones. Reversible with Cmd+Shift+T.
Close Chrome tabs. List them first, then pass the ones to close. Closed tabs come back with Cmd+Shift+T.
Args:
tabs: Each a window.tab number ("1.4") or text from a title or URL ("Netflix"). Prefer numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing reversibility: closed tabs are recoverable with Cmd+Shift+T, which contextualizes the destructiveHint=false claim. It also warns that tabs should be enumerated first. It does not mention permissions, limits, or what happens to tabs in other windows, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the workflow, then the recovery behavior, plus a compact Args block. No sentence is redundant or padded.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, required workflow, argument format, and undo semantics. It omits anything about scope (current window vs all windows) or failure behavior when a tab identifier doesn't match, but nothing essential 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the tabs array holds either window.tab numbers in "1.4" form or title/URL text, and gives the preference rule (prefer numbers). This is exactly the compensating detail the empty schema lacks.
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?
States a specific verb (close) and resource (Chrome tabs), and the domain is narrow enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_browser_tabs, read_browser_tab, and focus_browser_tab. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.
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?
"List them first, then pass the ones to close" prescribes a concrete workflow that routes the agent to list_browser_tabs before invoking this tool. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not condition or an alternative close path, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.