Open a dedicated browser for CSMAR or CNRDS campus data access, using a private profile instead of your everyday browser. Accepts an optional provider URL.
Open the local provider browser. Optional URL must belong to that provider.
Reuses a dedicated private profile; never opens your everyday browser profile. CSMAR may log in automatically on campus. For CNRDS try campus_school_login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it reuses a dedicated private profile and never touches the everyday browser profile, plus a provider-specific auto-login behavior. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.
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?
Short, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence carries information (action, URL constraint, profile privacy, login routing). No padding, though the provider routing note is slightly compressed.
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?
Covers the action, the URL constraint, privacy behavior, and login routing, which is adequate for an openWorld non-idempotent browser-launch tool with no output schema. What an agent still lacks is return/state information and explicit handling of what happens if the URL doesn't match the provider.
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 schema itself documents little. The description adds a key constraint ('URL must belong to that provider') and names the two provider contexts, which gives the provider enum real meaning. However, the 'url' parameter's purpose and format remain largely implicit.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Open the local provider browser'. An agent can identify the action clearly. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like campus_school_login beyond a passing hint, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Provides concrete routing guidance: CSMAR may auto-login on campus, and for CNRDS the agent should use campus_school_login instead. This names an alternative and a condition. It doesn't cover the full set of siblings or when-not-to-use cases, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.