dock_openOpen a new browser tab in the NAVIG agents group, optionally at a URL, and return its tab_id for later use.
Open a new tab in the user's browser inside the 'NAVIG agents' group and return its tab_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | http(s) address; empty opens a blank tab. | |
| active | No | Bring the tab to the front. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the return value ('return its tab_id'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits lifecycle context such as whether the tab must later be released via dock_release or how failures are surfaced.
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 sentence with zero filler, leading with the action and ending with the useful return-value note. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 simple two-parameter, no-required-arg tool with an existing output mention (tab_id) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It stops short of only minor lifecycle details (persistence and release), which keeps it from a 5.
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 'url' (including the empty-string blank-tab case) and 'active' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 ('Open') and resource ('a new tab in the user's browser'), plus a scoping detail (the 'NAVIG agents' group) that separates it from generic tab tools like cdp_new. An agent can identify the action and target surface without opening the schema.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus near-neighbors such as cdp_new, cdp_launch, or dock_act, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether a dock session must already exist). Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.