browser_page_infoReads the active tab’s title and URL, with an optional tab context ID, so agents can identify the current page.
Read the active tab title and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Tab context id (default: the active tab) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds no further behavioral context: no note on what happens if no tab is active, no pagination/return detail, and it does not acknowledge that the operation can target a non-active tab via the context parameter.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler whatsoever.
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 trivial read-only getter with no output schema and full parameter documentation, this is close to sufficient. The only missing piece is a hint about the shape of the returned data or behavior when no tab is active.
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?
Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description says 'active tab' while the schema allows any tab context id with the active tab as default, leaving that flexibility to the schema rather than reinforcing it.
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?
Specific verb (Read) plus concrete resources (title and URL) scoped to the tab. It is distinguishable from browser_info and browser_list_tabs by the 'active tab' focus, 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the current page's title or URL. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as browser_list_tabs for other tabs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.