octolimb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

switch_tab

Activate a browser tab by ID to make it the tab the current task uses, ensuring work continues in the right tab after a link opens a new one.

Instructions

[Real Chrome browser via the OctoLimb extension — drive the user's browser; use only when the task requires acting on a real website.] Switch to tab by tab id, and make it the tab this task uses from now on (e.g. after a link opened a new tab).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>"
    },
    "name": "switch_tab"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	No	Purpose of this action
`tab_id`	Yes	id of the tab to switch to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful stateful side effect: the switched-to tab becomes the tab this task uses from now on. It does not mention failure behavior for an invalid tab_id or any permission requirements, leaving a small gap.

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 bracketed environment/safety preamble is front-loaded, followed by a single tight sentence carrying the operation and its persistent effect. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 one-required-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers environment constraint, action, and the persistent tab-selection effect. Only error/edge-case behavior is unstated, which is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both tab_id and intent are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that switching is by tab id. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or range detail.

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

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (switch) plus resource (tab) and adds the crucial scope detail that the tab becomes the task's active tab going forward. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like open_tab, close_tab, and go_to_url without needing the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear condition of use ('use only when the task requires acting on a real website') and a concrete trigger example ('after a link opened a new tab'). It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (open_tab/close_tab) or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.