List pending browser dialogs and accept or dismiss them, optionally providing prompt text for prompt dialogs.
List pending dialogs or accept/dismiss one dialog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| accept | No | ||
| pageId | No | Stable page ID; defaults to the session active page | |
| dismiss | No | ||
| sessionId | No | Optional session ID; defaults to this MCP client active session | |
| promptText | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.8.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the two primary actions (list vs. accept/dismiss) but leaves important details unclear, such as what happens if both accept and dismiss are set, whether id is required to target a specific dialog, how promptText is used, and what listing returns. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate browser state.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality while remaining easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to support correct invocation. It omits how the list and accept/dismiss modes interact, what the list operation returns, and how parameters behave in edge cases. The description would be insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool in real scenarios.
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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. The property names (id, accept, dismiss, promptText) are somewhat intuitive, but the description does not explain their meaning, relationships, or defaults. An agent cannot determine safe combinations of parameters without additional information.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'list', 'accept', and 'dismiss' applied to 'dialogs'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on dialog handling, a unique capability among the listed browser control tools.
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 usage context is implied: it should be used when there are pending dialogs to handle. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention any related tools that might be better suited in certain scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.