On the Events list, the browser discovered zero WebMCP tools. Opening an event draft exposed four. Switching to a trip draft replaced them with five trip tools.
That route sequence is the behavior I wanted when Trip Workbench gained a second workflow. Registering every operation at startup would have exposed two unrelated domains even when only one editor was visible.
Page-scoped tools make the current context clearer. They also create a design question: how does an agent enter a workflow whose tools exist only after the right page is open?
Keep domain identity in the contract
The event editor has a title, date range, time zone, location mode, location label, and notes. The trip editor has airports, travel dates, cabin, traveler count, and purpose.
Both workflows reuse authorization, revision, and command-receipt patterns, but they keep separate coordinators, services, tables, validation rules, policy versions, and identifiers. Event tools accept eventId; trip tools accept draftId.
The event editor exposes:
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
get_event_draft | Read saved fields, revision, status, and unsaved-change state |
update_event_draft | Apply an allowed patch to an expected revision |
validate_event_draft | Return field issues and policy findings |
prepare_event_review | Show findings while the event remains a draft |
This synthetic example does not send invitations, connect to calendars, or book venues.
Register when the editor has context
The React editor registers tools only after it has a draft identity and status. A condensed lifecycle looks like this:
useEffect(() => { if (!eventId || draftStatus !== "draft") return; const registration = new AbortController(); registerEventDraftTools({ eventId, canMutate: Boolean(canMutate), coordinator: eventCoordinator, signal: registration.signal, onStatus: setRegistration, }); return () => registration.abort(); }, [eventId, draftStatus, canMutate, eventCoordinator]); Chrome’s current imperative API documents this signal-based lifecycle. As of Chrome 153, aborting the registration removes the tool without cancelling an already-running execution. That is helpful for component cleanup, but it means route cleanup and in-flight operation safety are separate responsibilities.
The draft identity belongs in the dependency list. React may retain the same component type while moving from one event to another; the old tools must disappear and the new handlers must bind to the new event.
Test the exact route sequence
The native browser run signed in normally, used visible navigation, created a synthetic event draft, and inspected the browser’s real tool collection. It did not call the coordinator directly.
| Context | Discovered interface |
|---|---|
| Traveler on Trips list | none |
| Traveler on Events list | none |
| Traveler editing an event | four event tools |
| Traveler editing a trip | five trip tools |
| Traveler back on Events list | none |
| Traveler reopening the event | four event tools |
| Observer editing the event | read, validate, prepare |
| Observer back on Events list | none |
An exact-name assertion catches stale registrations:
const expected = [ "get_event_draft", "prepare_event_review", "update_event_draft", "validate_event_draft", ]; const actual = page.webmcp.tools() .map((tool) => tool.name) .sort(); assert.deepEqual(actual, expected); The observer result is useful but limited. Omitting a mutation tool reduces accidental exposure; it does not authorize anything. The server must still reject writes from an actor without permission.
Execute a useful operation, not just discovery
Tool names alone do not prove that the page contract works. The run updated a synthetic workshop, validated it, and prepared an inline review.
{ "title": "Customer engineering workshop", "startDate": "2026-11-25", "endDate": "2026-11-26", "timeZone": "America/Los_Angeles", "locationMode": "manual", "locationLabel": "Demo workshop room", "notes": "Synthetic example; no invitations" } The accepted update moved the draft from revision 1 to 2. prepare_event_review displayed a MANUAL_LOCATION requirement with canSubmit: true and submitted: false. The visible title matched an independent database query, and the event remained a draft with zero submissions.
The injected test clock was October 14, 2026, so the dates were still in the future. Pinning time matters when validation depends on dates.
A narrow interface needs a way in
The Events list intentionally exposes no editor tools, so those tools cannot open their own workflow.
The recorded run used the normal Events link and “New event draft” button. A browser agent with navigation and actuation can take a similar path. A client limited to WebMCP calls cannot.
There are two defensible designs:
- Treat browser navigation as part of the client contract.
- Add a bounded list-level tool to open an authorized draft or create a new one.
I would avoid a generic “call any API” or “run arbitrary JavaScript” escape hatch. It destroys the narrow schemas and server checks that make the editor tools reviewable.
Do not turn tool count into a performance claim
This run proves that the discovered interface changes with route and role. It does not prove that a model completes tasks faster with four tools than with nine.
That requires a separate evaluation: keep the task and executable behavior fixed, vary the visible tool set, and measure wrong-target updates, workflow-entry failures, correct persisted outcomes, recovery steps, and final-answer accuracy.
The current evidence supports a narrower conclusion: expose editing tools where the relevant object is visible, remove them when the context ends, preserve server authorization, and design an explicit entry path for the clients you actually support.
