Skip to main content
Glama

Close Browser

close_browser

Closes all browser tabs and stops the Chrome process after a dedicated isolated session, freeing resources and ending that browser instance.

Instructions

Close all tabs in a browser + stop the Chrome process. Use after dedicated isolated session.

Ex: close_browser('alice') → {"closed_browser":"alice","closed_tabs":["t3","t4"]}

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": {
      "browser_id": "<browser_id>"
    },
    "name": "close_browser"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
browser_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight: it discloses that ALL tabs are closed and the Chrome process is stopped, which is genuinely useful destructive-scope information. However, it omits irreversibility, whether unsaved session state is lost, and error behavior for a non-existent browser_id — meaningful gaps for a destructive tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the effect. The example's returned JSON is redundant given an output schema exists, which costs a little space, but nothing else is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Since an output schema exists, the description needn't restate return values. But it fails to tell the agent where valid browser IDs originate or how this differs from `close`/`kill_all`, which is the information an agent actually needs before calling.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain `browser_id`, and it does not — the only hint is the example value 'alice'. It doesn't say whether the ID comes from `spawn`/`list_browsers` or its format, leaving the single required parameter largely undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Close all tabs in a browser + stop the Chrome process.' This clearly separates it from tab-level tools like `close` or `switch_tab` by scoping destruction to the whole browser process, though it never names the siblings it contrasts with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Use after dedicated isolated session' gives a usage hint but is vague — it doesn't say when to prefer this over `close` or `kill_all`, nor what happens if the browser is still needed. The guidance is implied context rather than explicit routing.

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