导航到指定 URL，并等待页面加载完成（domcontentloaded + 网络空闲窗口）。
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": {
"url": "<url>"
},
"name": "bf_navigate"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that navigation waits for domcontentloaded plus a network idle window, but it does not mention timeouts, behavior on failure, whether a session is required, or the return value. The disclosed wait behavior is meaningful but incomplete.
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, lean sentence that front-loads the action and target, then adds the key wait condition in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and wait semantics. However, it omits the requirement of an active session (bf_create_session sibling suggests one is needed), error/timeout behavior, and what the tool returns after navigation. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to infer.
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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'specified URL', which essentially restates the parameter name 'url' and adds no practical detail about URL format, required scheme, or handling of invalid URLs. Minimal semantic value over the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('导航到' / navigate to) and resource (specified URL), and adds the wait-for-load behavior. This clearly differentiates it from all sibling tools like bf_click, bf_screenshot, and bf_scroll, none of which perform navigation.
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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as an existing session. Usage is implied by the tool's name and the obvious role of navigation in a browser automation workflow, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.