agentgo-mcp

by Moha2005269

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_tabs

Control tabs in a Chromium browser: list, open, switch, close, navigate back/forward, or reload. Enables AI agents to manage tab sessions for web tasks.

Instructions

Manage your tabs. op: list, new (url), switch (tabId), close (tabId), back, forward, reload.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "browser_tabs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	Yes
`url`	No
`tabId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It never says whether 'switch' changes focus, what happens when 'close' removes the active or last tab, whether 'back/forward/reload' apply to the active tab, or what any operation returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by an op-to-parameter list with no filler. Every token is load-bearing, though the telegraphic style leaves no room for the behavioral context the tool lacks elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-operation tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values (e.g., what 'list' yields), which operations require a live page, or error/edge behavior, leaving an agent under-informed for several ops.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps parameters to operations ('new (url)', 'switch (tabId)', 'close (tabId)'), which is real added meaning, but it omits the tabId format, whether url is required for 'new', and what the remaining ops operate on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource (tabs) and enumerates seven concrete operations (list, new, switch, close, back, forward, reload), so the tool's scope is legible. The framing verb 'Manage' is generic and the description never distinguishes it from sibling browser_open, which plausibly overlaps with the 'new (url)' op.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the ten sibling browser tools. The op list is a task-to-parameter mapping, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server