Skip to main content
Glama

resize_window

Adjust the browser window size for a specified tab to test responsive layouts at different viewport dimensions.

Instructions

Change the size of the Firefox window a tab lives in, so a layout can be checked at phone, tablet or desktop width and so screenshots taken afterwards come out at that geometry. width, height and tabId are all required; there is no implicit tab here. The real window is resized when Firefox allows that; headless runs and older builds refuse that, and the tab's viewport is stretched instead, which puts the page at the same size. The reply names whichever path ran and quotes the innerWidth x innerHeight the page ended up reporting - expect it to fall short of the numbers you asked for, since toolbars come out of the window box and the browser clamps sizes it thinks are too small. Only the tab you name is affected; the rest of the group keeps rendering as it was.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabIdYesThe tab whose window gets resized; required, with nothing guessed for you. Take the id from tabs_context_mcp. If Firefox turns the window resize down, only this tab's viewport is changed and the other tabs are left alone.
widthYesHow wide to make the window, in pixels; must be positive. Browser chrome takes part of it, so the page area lands narrower than this - the reply says what the page actually measured.
heightYesHow tall to make the window, in pixels; must be positive. The tab strip and toolbar are subtracted from it, so the visible page is shorter; the reply quotes the innerHeight it settled on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains that headless runs and older builds may refuse window resizing and instead stretch the viewport, that the reply reports innerWidth/innerHeight which may fall short due to toolbars and clamping, and that only the specified tab is affected. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and presents necessary detail, but it contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating that tabId is required and that only the named tab is affected). The longer sentence about expected fall-short and clamps is dense but informative. Overall it is reasonably concise given the complexity, but not maximally tight.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description fully equips the agent to use the tool correctly: it covers input requirements, behavior under different conditions (headless, older builds), effect on other tabs, and what the reply will contain. Since there is no output schema, explicitly describing the reply format (innerWidth x innerHeight) ensures completeness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Though the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds substantial semantic detail for each: tabId explains which tab and fallback behavior, width and height both clarify positivity requirements, that browser chrome reduces the actual page area, and that the reply reports measured dimensions. This goes well beyond the baseline for full coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Change the size of the Firefox window a tab lives in') and identifies the specific resource (a Firefox window/tab). It also explains the intended use cases (layout checking at phone/tablet/desktop widths, screenshots). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform window resizing.

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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (before layout checks or screenshots) and explicitly notes that tabId is required and there is no implicit tab. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, though such guidance is less critical given no sibling tool overlaps.

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