Open a new browser tab to load and interact with a web page, optionally specifying a URL to navigate to.
Open a new browser tab, optionally navigating to a URL.
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_tab_new"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description only states the basic action but omits important behavioral details such as whether the new tab becomes active, whether it waits for the page to load, or any side effects like focus changes.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks context about whether the new tab gains focus or any return value. This is a minor gap for a basic tool.
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 schema provides no description for the 'url' parameter (0% coverage). The description clarifies that it is optional and used for navigation, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type. However, details like format or behavior for invalid URLs are missing.
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 action: opening a new browser tab with optional navigation. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_navigate (which navigates the current tab) and browser_tab_switch (which switches to an existing tab).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with browser_navigate for URL changes or explain when to choose a new tab over navigating the current tab.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.