Open an http(s) URL in the browser session to retrieve the page title, final URL, and readable text. Validates and blocks unsafe addresses for secure browsing.
Navigate the session to an http(s) URL and return the page title, final URL and readable text. The server validates the destination and refuses blocked address classes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute http(s) URL to open. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing that the server validates the destination and refuses blocked address classes, plus what it returns. It says nothing about waiting for load, timeouts, redirect handling, or whether a session must already exist.
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?
Two sentences, the action and its outputs front-loaded, with the validation caveat appended. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.
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 with no output schema, the description covers both the action and the returned fields (title, final URL, readable text), which is the key missing piece elsewhere. It falls short only on session prerequisite and post-navigation timing, which matter given the browser_* sibling set.
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%, so the single url parameter is fully documented by the schema itself. The description's "http(s) URL" phrasing matches the schema's "Absolute http(s) URL" without adding syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Navigate the session to an http(s) URL") and even enumerates outputs, which is well beyond tautology. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling browser_open, leaving the agent to guess which entry point opens versus navigates.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. With a sibling named browser_open that plausibly competes for the same job, this omission is costly rather than trivial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.