Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-browser-mcp

agent-browser-mcp

by zy2755
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_tabs

List, open, switch, or close browser tabs by index or page ID to manage multiple Chrome or Edge tabs during agent automation.

Instructions

多标签管理:list 列出 / new 新建 / select 切换(按 list 显示的 index 或 id)/ close 关闭。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "browser_tabs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoselect/close 的目标标签 pageId
urlNonew 时打开的 URL(可选)
indexNoselect/close 的目标标签序号(见 list 输出,0 起)
actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about the destructive nature of 'close', what happens to a tab's state or session, what 'list' returns, or what errors occur when an index or id is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence mapping action to meaning, front-loaded with the resource and structured as a compact action/description list. The slash-separated terse style is dense but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter multi-mode tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what 'list' returns, the destructive semantics of 'close', and failure behavior for an invalid index/id. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and each parameter is already documented. The description adds one genuinely useful relation: index or id must be taken from list output, clarifying the ordering dependency between the actions rather than restating the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (multi-tab management) and enumerates all four operations with verbs: list/create/switch/close. An agent can distinguish it from the page-level siblings like browser_navigate or browser_click, though it never explicitly states that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains what each action value does and, for select/close, which identifier to supply, which effectively tells the agent how to invoke each mode. It gives no guidance on when to open a new tab versus reuse the current one, or when a tab should be closed versus left open.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools