cdp_launchedLists debug browsers launched by NAVIG and whether each port is still live, so operators can verify active debug sessions.
List debug browsers NAVIG launched and whether each port is still live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the scope (only browsers NAVIG launched) and the liveness check, but says nothing about ordering, staleness of dead entries, or cost of probing ports.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier ('NAVIG launched') and the return detail ('whether each port is still live') are both information-bearing.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does give the two things an agent needs (which browsers, and their port liveness). It stops short of describing the returned fields or what a dead port implies, but nothing needed to invoke a zero-param read tool is 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.
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 (List) and a scoped resource (debug browsers NAVIG launched), plus the extra dimension of port liveness. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from near-neighbors like cdp_targets or cdp_tabs, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the status/inventory call for browsers started via cdp_launch. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of cdp_launch/cdp_stop as the lifecycle partners, and no condition telling the agent to prefer this over cdp_targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.