browser_list_windowsLists open Firefox windows with their state and geometry, helping you inspect window layout and availability in a privileged browser automation context.
List Firefox windows with their state and geometry (privileged context).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds real value with '(privileged context)', warning the agent that an elevated permission context is required, and it names the returned fields (state, geometry). It does not cover ordering, whether all windows or only some are returned, or the shape of the geometry data.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that covers resource, returned data, and the key constraint with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description names the salient return data (state and geometry), which is adequate for a zero-parameter list tool. Minor gap: it does not say what 'state' values are possible (e.g. minimized, maximized) or how many windows typically come back.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, so no parameter explanation is needed.
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 ('List Firefox windows') plus what each entry contains ('state and geometry'). It implicitly separates itself from browser_list_tabs and browser_get_window_geometry, though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.
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 parenthetical '(privileged context)' hints that this requires elevated permission, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus browser_get_window_geometry, browser_info, or browser_list_tabs. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.