List local browser tabs to show which pages are open, helping users select a tab for inspection or interaction.
List local browser tabs.
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": "browser_tabs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing beyond 'list'. It does not state the scope of 'local' (which browser, which profile), whether tabs are returned with identifiers usable by browser_switch_tab, or whether results are ordered/limited.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what this tool returns, yet it never explains the shape of a tab entry or how returned identifiers connect to browser_switch_tab. For a tool that exists to feed tab selection, that leaves a material gap.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List local browser tabs'), which is enough to distinguish it from mutating siblings like browser_switch_tab or browser_open. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 call this versus alternatives such as browser_switch_tab or browser_snapshot, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a browser session must already be open). The agent must infer the usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.