Inspect bridge scheduler state to coordinate multiple agents or tabs: view active command scopes, pending WebSocket commands, and known tab locks before sending work.
Return bridge scheduler state for multi-agent/tab work.
Shows active per-tab/global command scopes, pending WebSocket commands, and known tab locks. Useful when several agents are driving separate tabs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the read exposes (per-tab/global command scopes, pending WebSocket commands, tab locks), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about side effects, snapshot-vs-live semantics, or whether calling it affects scheduling.
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?
Three short sentences; the purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (what it returns, what it contains, when it's useful). No filler 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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does by enumerating the three categories of state returned. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only the snapshot/liveness semantics remain unstated.
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?
Zero parameters with a fully covered (empty) schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to supplement.
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?
States a specific verb ("Return") and resource ("bridge scheduler state") and further specifies the domain as "multi-agent/tab work." It is clearly a read-only diagnostic distinct from state-mutating siblings like browser_parallel, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similar-sounding browser_status.
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 closing sentence, "Useful when several agents are driving separate tabs," gives a real usage condition. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., browser_status, browser_health) and offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.