tab_closeClose a specific browser tab by ID, or the most recent tab if no ID is given. Keep a target tab and close all others with the others option.
关闭标签页，省略 tab_id 时关闭最新标签页；others=True 时保留该标签页关闭其余。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| others | No | 关闭除目标之外的所有标签页 | |
| tab_id | No | 标签页 id，省略时用最新标签页 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly details edge cases and destructive behavior (closing tabs, including all others), providing full transparency about the tool's effects.
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, concise sentence that covers the core function and all relevant variations without unnecessary detail or repetition.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool's behavior in all scenarios.
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 input schema already includes complete descriptions for both parameters (others and tab_id). The tool description essentially repeats this information without adding new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 closes a tab, with specific behavior for omitted tab_id and the others flag. It is unambiguous and distinctive among tab-related tools.
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 behavior conditions (closing latest tab when tab_id omitted, closing all others when others=True) but does not explicitly compare to alternative tab tools. Still, the usage context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.