Close stale, blank, or pattern-matching browser tabs automatically to free memory and maintain a clean browser.
Automatically close stale, blank (about:blank), or pattern-matching tabs to free browser memory and maintain cleanliness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| close_blank | No | Close all blank or empty new tabs | |
| keep_current | No | Do not close the currently active tab | |
| url_patterns | No | List of URL substrings/patterns to close |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that tabs are closed (a destructive, non-reversible action) and the categories targeted, but leaves the notion of 'stale' undefined even though no parameter controls staleness, and does not describe the return value or what the agent learns about what was closed.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and the target categories with zero filler. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.
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?
Relatively simple tool: no output schema, no annotations, three optional parameters all documented in schema. Wait – the description omits the keep_current default behavior and the undefined staleness criterion, so it is not fully complete: score 3.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal detail beyond the schema ('about:blank' as an example of blank, and 'pattern-matching' for url_patterns), but the schema already documents all three parameters cleanly.
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 (close) and resource (tabs) with clear scope qualifiers: stale, blank (about:blank), and pattern-matching. This implicitly separates it from the singular browser_close_tab sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 purpose implies bulk cleanup usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus browser_close_tab or browser_list_tabs, and no mention of prerequisites or when cleanup should be avoided. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.