context_newCreate an isolated browser context with separate cookies to log into multiple accounts simultaneously in one browser.
创建一个独立的浏览器上下文（BrowserContext），cookies 与主上下文完全隔离， 用于同一浏览器内登录多个账号。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| browser_id | No | 浏览器会话 id，省略时用当前唯一会话 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_ids | No | ||
| browser_id | Yes | ||
| context_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the main side effect: creating a new context with isolated cookies. It does not mention any other behavioral details such as resource usage or cleanup requirements, but given the readOnlyHint=false annotation and the straightforward creation action, the behavioral transparency is adequate.
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?
The description is one concise sentence that packs the essential information: action (create), object (BrowserContext), key property (cookie isolation), and purpose (multi-account login). No superfluous words.
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 description is complete for the tool's primary purpose, and the parameter is well documented. It does not mention the return value, but given the tool likely returns a context identifier and no output schema is provided, this is a minor gap. The description still gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 only parameter browser_id is fully described: it is the browser session ID, and omitting it uses the current unique session. The schema coverage is 100% because all parameters are documented, and the description adds clarity about the default behavior.
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 clearly states the tool creates a new isolated browser context for multi-account login. The verb '创建' (create) and the specific purpose '用于同一浏览器内登录多个账号' leave no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 description explains the primary use case (logging into multiple accounts in one browser) and notes cookie isolation, which signals when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like context_close or context_list, but the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.