Accept or dismiss browser dialogs on a specific page, optionally entering prompt text to resolve the dialog.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say what happens when no dialog is present, whether promptText applies only to specific dialog types, or what side effects accept/dismiss produce. This is a significant gap for a mutating action.
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, focused sentence that states the trigger condition and the action. There is no padding or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 full schema descriptions, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to make a basic call. However, it lacks behavioral context such as no-dialog behavior, whether promptText works with accept vs. dismiss, and potential errors, so it is not fully complete.
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%: pageId, action, and promptText each already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names the resource (browser dialog) and the intended operation ('handle it'), and the trigger condition 'if a browser dialog was opened' adds practical context. It doesn't explicitly say accept/dismiss, but the schema enum fills that in. No sibling tool overlaps with dialog handling, so it is reasonably distinguishable.
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 a clear when-to-use condition: only when a browser dialog is open. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but among the listed siblings there is no other dialog-handling tool, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.