Opens a new Chrome tab with a specified URL, optionally in a designated profile, letting AI agents start browsing in the correct browser session.
Opens a new tab in the user’s Chrome browser with a specified URL, optionally in a designated profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to open. | |
| profile | No | Optional profile name or folder (e.g. "Work", "Clean") to open this tab in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / properties / profileAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional profile name or folder (e.g. \"Work\", \"Clean\") to open this tab in.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the basic action. It does not say whether a browser session must already be running, whether the named profile must first be launched via browser_launch_profile, whether the new tab becomes the active tab, or how failures (bad URL, unknown profile) are handled.
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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally improved by appending the key alternative or prerequisite, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, full schema coverage, no output schema), so the description need not explain return values. However, for a browser-automation tool with no annotations, the missing prerequisites (existing session, profile availability, tab activation) are real gaps an agent would want covered.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the profile examples ('Work', 'Clean'). The description's phrase 'optionally in a designated profile' simply restates the schema without adding format, defaulting, or validation semantics, 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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Opens a new tab in the user's Chrome browser' — plus the scope of a URL and optional profile. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like browser_navigate (navigate existing tab) or browser_launch_profile, so the agent must infer which one to reach for.
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 only implied: the word 'new' suggests using this instead of navigating the current tab, and 'optionally in a designated profile' hints at multi-profile scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of browser_navigate or browser_launch_profile as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.