Execute parallel URL and goal tasks in browser tabs to check many pages at once, then collect all compact results.
Run several url+goal tasks in parallel tabs and return all results (compact). Use for checking many sites or pages at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | ||
| concurrency | No | ||
| max_actions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tasks run in parallel tabs and that results are returned compactly. It does not mention side effects, error handling, or rate limits, but for a straightforward browser automation tool these are not critical. The disclosed behavior aligns with expectations.
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?
Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, the second gives usage context. No redundancy or filler.
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?
For a multi-task browsing tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it operates (parallel), and what to expect (compact results). It does not detail the return structure or all parameter semantics, but the schema provides constraints and defaults. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and call it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'url+goal tasks' which clarifies the structure of the 'tasks' parameter, but it does not explain 'concurrency' or 'max_actions'. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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?
The description states a specific verb (run), resource (several url+goal tasks), mode (in parallel tabs), and output (return all results, compact). It also explicitly frames usage as 'checking many sites or pages at once', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'browse' that handle a single page.
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 description provides clear context with 'Use for checking many sites or pages at once', which implies it is for multi-task scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though the sibling list (e.g., 'browse') makes the distinction apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.