Navigate the active browser page to a specified URL. Configure timeout and wait for load, domcontentloaded, networkidle, or commit to control navigation completion.
Navigate the active page to a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| waitUntil | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the page will be navigated; it does not mention that the current page state may be lost, whether dialogs can block navigation, what the default wait behavior is, or what the tool returns.
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 focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, easy to scan, and every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must do more work. It omits timing/wait behavior, parameter semantics for timeout and waitUntil, and any guidance on when this is preferred over sibling navigation tools. The description is minimally viable but not complete for correct invocation in varied situations.
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 description mentions URL, matching the required param, but says nothing about the timeout parameter's units or default, and nothing about the meaning of the waitUntil enum values. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 is clear: it names a specific verb ('navigate') and resource ('the active page') with a destination URL. However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like browser_new_page, browser_switch_page, or browser_navigate_back, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether this should be used for new tabs, switching pages, or going back, because those distinctions are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.