Browser MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('close') which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify what happens after closure (e.g., whether browser focus shifts, if data is lost, or if this affects session state). The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional context exists elsewhere, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral details for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(tab)' adds useful clarification without verbosity, and the reference to 'browser_docs' is appropriately brief. Every element earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about consequences, error conditions, or what happens after closure. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional documentation exists, but the description itself doesn't provide complete standalone guidance for safe tool invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter that's well-documented in the schema, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but with zero parameters explicitly mentioned in the description and only one total parameter, a 4 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('close a browser page (tab)') and resource ('browser page'), with the parenthetical '(tab)' providing helpful clarification. It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, as no other tool performs page closing operations.

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. While it references 'browser_docs' for additional information, this is not explicit usage guidance within the description itself. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or relationship to tools like browser_list_pages or browser_new_page.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.