usable-browser-agent-free

browser_dialogs

Lists native JavaScript dialogs (alert, confirm, prompt) that appeared and shows how each was automatically answered, helping you verify if any popups interrupted the page.

Instructions

List native JS dialogs (alert/confirm/prompt) the page tried to open and how they were auto-answered. Use this to see if the page asked something.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_dialogs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists dialogs and how they were auto-answered, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is non-destructive or whether it consumes or resets the dialog queue. The word 'List' helps, but more explicit safety/behavioral notes would strengthen it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence stating the core function, followed by a brief use-case sentence. No wasted words; it is concise and immediately clear.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return value. It says 'List ...' which implies an array of dialog entries with their auto-answer status, but it does not specify the exact structure. For a simple listing tool this is likely sufficient, though a bit more detail on the return shape would make it complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('native JS dialogs (alert/confirm/prompt)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_native_dialog or browser_set_dialog_policy. It also states the purpose ('to see if the page asked something'), making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear use case ('Use this to see if the page asked something') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It gives context for when to use, which is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server