Retrieve a paginated list of open browser tabs. Use offset and limit to page through results when many tabs are open.
Get the list of open tabs in the user's browser. Use offset and limit parameters for pagination when there are many tabs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tabs to return (default: 100, max: 500) | |
| offset | No | Starting index for pagination (0-based, must be >= 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about ordering of tabs, whether it reflects the active window vs all windows, whether it requires browser permissions, or what each returned tab contains. It only implies read-only behavior through the verb 'Get', leaving meaningful behavioral traits unreported.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. The pagination note follows the purpose statement in a sensible order, though the second sentence is arguably schema-restating rather than value-adding.
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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return shape (what fields a tab has) and ordering behavior. It omits both, so an agent knows the tool's purpose but not what it will actually receive back.
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 both limit and offset are fully documented in the schema (defaults, max, 0-based semantics). The description merely restates that they control pagination, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the list of open tabs in the user's browser'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as get-recent-browser-history or get-tab-web-content, so the sibling boundary is left implicit.
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 only usage guidance is 'Use offset and limit parameters for pagination when there are many tabs,' which is a mechanical hint about the parameters already in the schema. There is no statement of when this tool is preferable to get-recent-browser-history or get-tab-web-content, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.