Switch focus to another browser tab. Use session_id and tab_id to direct subsequent browser actions to the intended tab.
Switch focus to a different browser tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | Yes | Tab ID returned by browser_new_tab | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID returned by browser_navigate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond restating the action. It does not explain side effects, such as whether focus persists for subsequent commands or whether switching invalidates other handles, which is meaningful for a stateful browser tool.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. It omits error/staleness behavior and the relationship to browser_new_tab, which an agent would benefit from knowing.
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 100%, and both parameters (session_id, tab_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or provenance detail beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 (switch) and resource (browser tab) with the notion of focus, so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like browser_new_tab, which also deals with tabs, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the tab must already exist), and does not reference alternatives such as browser_new_tab. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.