Execute a web query in the active browser tab, returning top results from Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other selectable platforms. Tailor output by setting region, platform, and result limit.
Run a web search in the active tab and return the top results
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| region | No | ||
| platform | No |
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 bears the full burden. It discloses the core behavior and output, but it does not mention side effects such as navigating the active tab away from the current page or potential captcha/network issues. This is adequate but not rich.
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 13-word sentence with the action and location front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 description is enough for a basic call, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves unspecified what exactly 'top results' contains and does not warn about page navigation side effects. The lack of guidance relative to sibling search tools adds a mild completeness gap.
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 description must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints at 'query' through 'web search' and at 'limit' through 'top results', but it does not explain region or platform, which remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 ('Run a web search'), a location ('in the active tab'), and an output ('return the top results'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_tabs or navigate, even without naming them explicitly.
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 implies usage when a web search result list is needed and notes the active-tab constraint, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_tabs or related tools. It lacks exclusions and alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.