Assign a memorable name to a browser tab so you can refer to it later via browser_resolve_tag; names live in memory and need re-tagging after bridge restarts.
Give a tab a memorable name. Refer to it later via browser_resolve_tag. Names survive bridge restarts only if you re-tag — they live in memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tab_id | Yes |
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 burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful, non-obvious trait: tags live in memory and only survive bridge restarts if re-applied. However it omits whether tagging an already-tagged tab overwrites or errors, and what failure behavior looks like for an invalid tab_id.
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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The final note is slightly awkward but carries real information, so nothing should be cut.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool this covers the essential action and the key lifecycle caveat, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, important details (overwrite semantics, error cases, return value, source of tab_id) are left unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters. The description only loosely implies that 'name' is a human-readable label and that 'tab_id' identifies the target tab; it adds nothing about name uniqueness, format, or where tab_id comes from (siblings like browser_tabs or browser_resolve_tag).
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 states a specific verb and resource: assigning a memorable name to a tab, which is clearly distinct from tab manipulation siblings like browser_pin_tab or browser_switch_tab. It also names the companion tool (browser_resolve_tag) that consumes the tag, giving the agent a sense of where this fits in a workflow.
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 pairing of 'Give a tab a memorable name' with 'Refer to it later via browser_resolve_tag' implicitly defines the use case: you tag when you intend to reference the tab later by name rather than by volatile id. No explicit when-not guidance or sibling exclusions are given, keeping it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.