Manage Chrome tabs by listing, opening, selecting, or closing them via action, index, or URL so AI agents can switch and control pages during a session.
Gestiona pestañas: list, new (con url), select (index), close (index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| action | 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 does not say whether closing a tab is destructive to page state, what happens when closing the active or last tab, or what the list operation returns — all critical for a tool that mutates browser tab state.
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 zero filler: resource first, then each action with its relevant parameter in parentheses. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 three-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description leaves too much unsaid: return values for list, index base, url format, and side effects of close. An agent would likely guess on at least one of these.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does add value by binding 'url' to the 'new' action and 'index' to 'select' and 'close'. However, it omits the url format (absolute vs relative) and whether index is 0- or 1-based, leaving the two non-enum parameters still ambiguous.
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 resource (pestañas/tabs) and enumerates the four supported operations, which is more than a name restatement. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browser_navigate or browser_select, so an agent cannot fully infer its scope without reading the schema.
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 action list implies when each operation applies (open a new tab, switch tabs, close tabs), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus browser_navigate or browser_select, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.