Browser MCP Server

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 what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires an active browser instance, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of page IDs or titles), or if it's a read-only operation. The reference to 'browser_docs' hints at more info but doesn't provide it directly.

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 concise with a single sentence, but the parenthetical reference to 'browser_docs' adds minor clutter without providing immediate value. It's front-loaded with the core action, but could be slightly more polished by integrating the reference more smoothly or omitting it if not essential.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of page objects with IDs/URLs), which is crucial for an agent to use the output effectively. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional context exists but isn't provided here, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all open browser pages (tabs)'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_switch_page' or 'browser_close_page', but the action is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 more information, this is not explicit usage advice. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active browser session, or when to choose this over other page-related tools.

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