List all open tabs in your real Chrome browser to inspect or manage them programmatically.
List all tabs in the user's real Chrome.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "chrome_list_tabs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "real Chrome" scope, which is mildly useful context consistent with the open-world annotation, but it does not disclose auth needs, return shape, or rate limits.
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 waste. Every word contributes to stating what is listed and where.
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 zero-parameter read operation with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete enough to call the tool correctly. The main omission is any indication of what tab information is returned, though that is a minor gap for a list-tabs tool.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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 ("List") and resource ("tabs") and scopes it to the user's real Chrome, making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling browser_tabs, which prevents a top score.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_tabs or chrome_switch_tab. The description also omits prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.