cdp_stopClose a NAVIG-launched debug browser and turn its CDP debug port off. Set all=true to shut down every browser launched by NAVIG.
Close a NAVIG-launched debug browser (turns the debug port OFF). Set all=true to close every launched debug browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Stop every NAVIG-launched browser, not just the current one | |
| port | No | CDP debug port (default 9222). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful side-effect context ('turns the debug port OFF'), which goes beyond the annotations. It still omits what happens if the browser is not running, whether state is discarded, and error behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the one option that changes scope. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what closes, the port-off side effect, and the all-scope flag. It falls short of fully situating the tool against neighboring cdp lifecycle tools (detach/launched/targets).
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 100%, so both parameters (all, port) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates the function of all=true but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: 'Close a NAVIG-launched debug browser', with a scoping parenthetical clarifying that the debug port is disabled. This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like cdp_launch and cdp_eval, though it does not explicitly contrast with a potentially overlapping sibling such as cdp_detach.
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 gives one usage hint ('Set all=true to close every launched debug browser'), which implies when the all-flag is appropriate. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as cdp_detach, nor any prerequisite or state requirement for the target browser.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.