Open a URL in a background browser tab with your logged-in session and get a page snapshot with [eN] refs for subsequent actions via fl_act.
Open a URL in a background tab of the dedicated browser (logged-in sessions kept). Returns a compact snapshot whose [eN] refs can be used directly in fl_act.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max interactive elements listed (default 150). | |
| url | Yes | ||
| text | No | Characters of page text to include (default 600, 0 for none). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses background-tab opening, retained logged-in sessions, and the snapshot return with [eN] refs, but omits tab lifecycle, cleanup behavior, failure modes, and side effects.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The operational context is front-loaded, and the return-value note follows immediately.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes care to explain that a compact snapshot with usable [eN] refs is returned. It is complete enough to call and chain into fl_act, though it could say more about tab persistence and error behavior.
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 coverage is moderate at 67%, and the schema itself describes the max and text parameters. The description adds context about the returned snapshot but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters, so a baseline score of 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: opening a URL in a background tab of the dedicated browser. It also distinguishes the result as a compact snapshot with [eN] refs, making its role clear relative to action and snapshot siblings.
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?
It implies usage for session-aware navigation by noting that logged-in sessions are kept and the tab is opened in the background. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus fl_tabs, fl_snapshot, or fl_act, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.