Run the same recorded browser flow across many variable sets in parallel, each in its own background tab, to batch-test variations without manual repetition.
Replay the same flow for many variable sets in parallel, each in its own background tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| runs | Yes | ||
| keepTabs | No | ||
| concurrency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention parallel execution and background tabs, but omits critical behavior such as tab lifecycle, error handling, concurrency defaults, authentication needs, and what happens when runs fail.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the broader under-specification of behavior and parameters.
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 four-parameter parallel browser-automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the core action but leaves out operational details an agent would need to invoke it correctly, such as concurrency defaults, tab cleanup, and failure 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters. It only hints at their meaning through phrases like 'variable sets,' 'same flow,' 'parallel,' and 'background tab,' without defining name, runs, keepTabs, concurrency, their types, defaults, or constraints.
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 ('Replay the same flow') and clearly scopes it to many variable sets in parallel, each in its own background tab. This distinguishes it from the single-run sibling fl_run without needing to open either schema.
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 phrase 'for many variable sets in parallel' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as fl_run for single executions or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is present but inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.