Manage Firefox native tab groups by listing, creating, updating, or ungrouping them through Firefox Bridge. Requires access to member tabs and optional tabGroups permission.
List, create, update or ungroup native tab groups. Every member tab requires access. Requires optional tabGroups permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| tabIds | No | ||
| groupId | No | ||
| collapsed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, so the description doesn't need to restate the safety profile. It does add non-obvious context: per-tab access requirements and the optional tabGroups permission gate. It omits what 'ungroup' actually does to group state and which parameters each action expects, leaving real behavioral gaps.
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, front-loaded with the capability statement before the constraints. Nothing is redundant; the weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity.
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?
A destructive, open-world, multi-action mutation tool with six undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more than a capability list. The access and permission notes are valuable, but the per-action parameter applicability and the consequences of 'ungroup' are missing.
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 six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly doesn't: it never explains that tabIds is create-only, groupId is for update/ungroup, or that title/color/collapsed only apply to update. The action list merely echoes four enum values already in the schema.
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 set (List, create, update, ungroup) applied to a specific resource (native tab groups), and the action list maps onto the action enum. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like firefox_tab_action or firefox_list_tabs, which is the only reason it falls short of 5.
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 only usage-relevant content is a prerequisite: every member tab requires access and the optional tabGroups permission must be granted. There is no guidance on when to choose this over firefox_tab_action or firefox_list_tabs, and no when-not-to-use case despite this tool having destructive capability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.