cotlet_browser_navigateOpens a public http or https address in the user's PeoplePerHour Cloud Browser and returns the URL and title it ended on. Only PeoplePerHour pages open. Every started minute of the session costs credits; it ends when closed or 3 minutes after the last call in the browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A public http or https address, e.g. https://example.com. In an app's browser, a page of that app. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: credit cost per started minute, the 3-minute idle session timeout, and the returned values. It omits whether a prior cotlet_browser_open is required.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then cost and lifetime. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, cost, session lifecycle, and stated return values. The remaining gap is the relationship to cotlet_browser_open and the session-start prerequisite.
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 coverage is 100% and the single url parameter is fully documented with a format example, so the schema carries the load. The description adds a domain restriction ('Only PeoplePerHour pages open') that arguably conflicts with the schema's public-URL example, muddying rather than clarifying semantics.
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 a specific verb (opens) plus resource (a URL in the PeoplePerHour Cloud Browser) and even names the return values (ended-on URL and title). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling cotlet_browser_open, which an agent could easily confuse with navigate.
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?
Usage is implied through constraints: it only opens PeoplePerHour pages and costs credits per started minute. There is no explicit when-to-use versus cotlet_browser_open, nor whether a browser must already be open, so the agent must infer the call sequence.
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.