Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-chrome-server

mcp-chrome-server

by dlwjdtn535
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tool_switch_to_window

Switch to a specific browser window using its handle to focus on the desired tab or window.

Instructions

Switch to a specific window.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "window_handle": "<window_handle>"
    },
    "name": "tool_switch_to_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
window_handleYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without explaining side effects (e.g., focus changes, failure behavior if handle is invalid) or safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks essential detail, making it less useful despite its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of browser window management and the existence of sibling tools for obtaining handles and switching frames, the description is insufficient. It omits return value information (no output schema) and fails to link to related tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the 'window_handle' parameter beyond the schema. The description fails to explain what a valid handle is, how to obtain it, or any constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (switch) and resource (specific window), which is distinct from the multiple frame-related sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other window-related tools or define what 'switch' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_switch_to_frame or tool_switch_to_default_content. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining window handles first) or context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools