get_page_infoRetrieve the current URL, title, loading state, and User-Agent of a tab.
获取标签页当前网址、标题、加载状态与 User-Agent。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| tab_id | Yes | ||
| user_agent | No | ||
| ready_state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is present and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details such as error handling or behavior with invalid tab IDs, beyond what the annotation implies.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary words or complex structure.
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 lists the specific output fields (URL, title, status, user agent), providing sufficient context for a simple read operation. It lacks details on return format or error conditions, but these are not critical given the simplicity of the tool.
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 tab_id is optional with default null, but the description does not explain its meaning or the effect of omitting it (e.g., whether it refers to the active tab). Schema coverage is 0%, leaving the parameter entirely unexplained.
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 fetches the current URL, title, loading status, and user agent of a tab, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like tab_info or vtable_info.
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 implicitly indicates when to use it (when page-level metadata is needed) by listing the exact information returned, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.