Close a specific browser tab by tab_id to clean up left-open pages and keep persistent browser sessions organized for follow-up or concurrent tasks.
Close a tab that browse left open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'close a tab' and omits whether the action is destructive, whether it requires the tab to exist, and what happens on failure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only weakness is the grammatically informal 'that browse left open', which slightly muddies the object reference.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one required parameter. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of tab_id or failure behavior leaves gaps for an agent invoking a mutation.
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 define the single required parameter, but it never mentions tab_id or its expected format/source. The parameter remains undocumented in both places.
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 and resource ('Close a tab') and ties it to the sibling tool browse, so the agent can roughly distinguish it from browsing. The phrasing 'that browse left open' is slightly awkward but conveys the intended object.
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 implied: use this to close a tab previously left open by browse. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of error conditions when the tab is already closed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.