Set how future alert, confirm, and prompt dialogs are answered by choosing accept or cancel and optionally supplying prompt text.
How future alert/confirm/prompt dialogs are answered (default: accept). Every dialog is reported in the result of the action that opened it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accept | Yes | true: OK; false: Cancel | |
| prompt_text | No | What to answer a prompt() with |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds useful context about default behavior and where dialogs are reported. However, it does not clarify persistence across navigations, whether it affects an already-open dialog, or what happens if prompt_text is used with a non-prompt dialog.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the behavioral default and followed by useful reporting context. There is no wasted language.
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 two-parameter configuration tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral scope and default. It leaves minor edge cases unstated, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with clear semantics. The description mentions the default accept behavior but adds no additional detail about prompt_text beyond the schema.
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 clearly states that this tool controls how future alert/confirm/prompt dialogs are answered, with a default of accept. It distinguishes the tool from action-oriented siblings like browser_click by focusing on dialog policy, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 word 'future' implies the tool should be configured before the action that triggers a dialog, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Usage is reasonably inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.