If a browser dialog was opened, use this command to handle it
If a browser dialog was opened, use this command to handle it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Whether to dismiss or accept the dialog | |
| pageId | Yes | Targets a specific page by ID. | |
| promptText | No | Optional prompt text to enter into the dialog. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{}New value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=false, so the description still carries most of the burden. It does not disclose the key behavioral trait of dialogs — that they block further page interaction until handled — nor the difference in effect between accept and dismiss beyond what the enum labels imply.
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?
One short sentence with the condition front-loaded and no waste. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of dense information.
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 three-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the minimum: what it is for. It omits the blocking nature of dialogs and when to choose each action, which would matter for correct invocation sequencing.
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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has an inline description, including the accept/dismiss enum and optional promptText. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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?
The verb 'handle' is vague, but paired with 'browser dialog' it identifies a concrete resource, and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like click or navigate_page. It never states what 'handle' actually entails (accept/dismiss), which the schema alone reveals.
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 conditional 'If a browser dialog was opened' gives an implicit trigger condition, which is better than nothing. However, it offers no guidance on when to accept vs dismiss, no mention of ordering relative to other actions, and no sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.