Establishes a connection to the Brave browser through its extension and returns the current browser state, enabling subsequent automation and control via CDP.
Connect to the browser via the extension and report its state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a connection is established and state is reported, but it does not explain side effects, whether a browser window is launched, what 'state' includes, or failure behavior. It is not misleading but minimally informative.
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 concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized, though 'report its state' is somewhat underspecified.
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?
The tool is simple with zero parameters, so complexity is low. However, 'report its state' is vague, and there is no clarification about connection lifecycle, prerequisites, or return shape. Still, the basic intent is clear enough for a no-arg tool.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.
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 names a specific action (connect) and resource (browser via the extension), and states a result (report its state). It is distinguishable from siblings like disconnect and health, though 'state' remains vague.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as health or disconnect. It does not mention prerequisites like extension installation, whether the browser must be running, or when connecting would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.