Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
usable-browser-agent-free

usable-browser-agent-free

by Savvy-Tech-Sphere
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_list_tabs

Lists all open browser tabs with their IDs, URLs, and titles to provide a snapshot of the current browsing session.

Instructions

List all open tabs with their ids, urls, and titles.

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_list_tabs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action without revealing side effects, failure modes, or non-destructive guarantees. It does not mention whether the list is a snapshot, what happens with no tabs, or any performance implications.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The action and key output details are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the output fields and the scope (all open tabs). Minor omissions like window scoping or empty-tab behavior are acceptable given the simplicity of the tool.

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, so the schema covers everything vacuously. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (ids, urls, titles), which is helpful for an agent anticipating the output structure. Baseline 4 applies for zero-param tools.

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 clearly states the verb (list), the resource (open tabs), and the specific output fields (ids, urls, titles). It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_select_tab or browser_new_tab.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the name implies its purpose, the description does not explicitly direct an agent on when listing tabs is appropriate or what to consider instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools