Read the active Chrome tab via the user's logged-in profile to return its URL, title, and readable text when fetch is blocked by 403s, logins, or bot checks.
Read the user's currently active Chrome tab through their real, logged-in browser profile. Returns the page URL, title, and cleaned readable text. Use when WebFetch/fetch is blocked by a 403, login wall, or bot detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavioral trait: it reads via the user's real logged-in profile rather than a sandboxed fetch, which explains why it bypasses auth walls. It omits secondary behavior such as whether the tab is focused, what happens with no browser open, or any rate limits, so it stops short of full disclosure.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return values, then the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description enumerates what is returned (URL, title, cleaned readable text), which is what an agent needs. For a zero-parameter tool this is close to complete; only the failure/no-browser behavior and any tab-focus side effects are left unaddressed.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related ambiguity is introduced.
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 ('Read the user's currently active Chrome tab') plus the mechanism ('through their real, logged-in browser profile') and the return shape (URL, title, cleaned readable text). It is clearly distinguishable from open_and_read_url by the 'currently active tab' scoping, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when WebFetch/fetch is blocked by a 403, login wall, or bot detection.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it offers no when-not-to-use and does not mention the sibling open_and_read_url as the alternative for non-active-URL fetching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.