browser_statusCheck whether the Chrome extension and native host are connected before running browser automation tasks.
Check whether the Chrome extension and native host are connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| browser | No | Which connected Chrome to use: an instanceId or label from browser_list_instances. Required when more than one browser is connected; session-based tools infer it from their sessionId. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / browserAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Which connected Chrome to use: an instanceId or label from browser_list_instances. Required when more than one browser is connected; session-based tools infer it from their sessionId.",
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic but never states it explicitly, does not describe what constitutes 'connected', what happens when a browser is not connected, or what the result looks like. For a status tool whose entire value is the returned health signal, this is a notable gap.
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. Nothing is wasted, and the core purpose is the first thing the agent reads.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not say what a status check returns (boolean, per-component statuses, error conditions) or how it relates to the broader browser workflow. For a diagnostic entry point, the agent lacks enough to interpret the result.
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% and the single optional 'browser' parameter is fully documented in the schema (instanceId/label, required when multiple browsers are connected). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Check whether') and a specific resource (Chrome extension and native host connection), so an agent immediately understands this is a connectivity/diagnostic check. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like browser_list_instances or browser_cdp_attach, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus other browser tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., when a status check is needed before attaching CDP or listing instances), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.