Activates a Chrome tab by matching its title substring and clicking the tab pill via UI Automation, bringing the target tab to the foreground for subsequent actions.
REAL OS click on a Chrome tab pill via UIA (pywinauto click_input) — activates the tab so its content script i…
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gate | No | Expected window title after activation (… | |
| match | Yes | Tab title substring to match (e.g.… | |
| frameId | No | frameId (omit=top) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry safety/behavior disclosure. It discloses that it uses pywinauto click_input (a real OS click) and that it activates the tab, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits side effects, preconditions (e.g., foreground window, tab visibility), and failure modes, and the sentence is truncated.
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, direct sentence with no redundancy, but it is cut off mid-sentence ('content script i…'), which prevents it from being a neatly structured definition.
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?
The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a truncated description, important context is missing: when to use it, what happens if the tab pill isn't found, and what the content script does after activation.
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%, so parameters already have explanations. The description adds little semantic detail beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify how 'match' relates to tab pill labels or how 'gate' is used.
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?
States it performs a real OS-level click on a Chrome tab pill using UIA/pywinauto and that the goal is to activate the tab so its content script can run. This is specific and distinguishes it from generic click tools, though it doesn't name a sibling or delimit scope.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The 'REAL OS' wording implies it is for physical UI automation rather than DOM-level click, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over real_click, click, or tabs. This leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.