browser_close
Close the active browser window to manage browser instances and free system resources during desktop automation workflows.
Instructions
Close the browser instance
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Close the active browser window to manage browser instances and free system resources during desktop automation workflows.
Close the browser instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but doesn't explain what happens upon closure (e.g., whether it terminates the browser process, closes all tabs, or affects other tools). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's effects and potential side effects.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'close' entails) and usage context, which could be important for an agent to avoid errors like closing a non-existent browser.
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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
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 action ('Close') and the target resource ('the browser instance'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_open' or 'desktop_window_focus', which might also involve browser window management, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open browser instance), exclusions, or related tools like 'browser_open' for starting a browser, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/K1ta141k/mcp-desktop-tools'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server