Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DrissionPage-MCP

DrissionPage-MCP

by hooplus1ce
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

新建标签页

tab_new

Create a new browser tab with optional URL, background opening, and multi-account cookie isolation by specifying a context ID.

Instructions

新建标签页。指定 context_id 时在对应多账号上下文中创建（cookies 隔离）。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tab_new"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo初始网址，可为空
backgroundNo是否在后台打开
browser_idNo浏览器会话 id，省略时用当前唯一会话
context_idNo多账号上下文 id（由 context_new 创建），省略时在主上下文创建

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
titleNo
tab_idYes
browser_idNo
context_idNo
ready_stateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates the mutating action (creating a tab) and the cookies-isolation effect, but does not disclose whether the tab receives focus, what it returns, or possible errors. readOnlyHint=false is consistent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and every sentence contributes useful information; there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple creation action, it covers the key contextual distinction (multi-account isolation). However, it does not mention return values or focus behavior, though an output schema is reportedly present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions already explain all parameters; the tool description only adds context_id behavior, so it adds no significant parameter meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 tab and specifies the context_id behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from related tab operations beyond the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the main conditional behavior (context_id for multi-account isolation) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like navigate or tab_list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools