Skip to main content
Glama
DB-25

arc-control-mcp

by DB-25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Go Back

go_back

Navigate a tab back in history, including background tabs where Arc's own back command fails, and verify the result against the tab URL.

Instructions

Navigate a tab back in history. Goes through the page, so it works on a background tab, which Arc's own back command does not, and the result is checked against the tab url rather than assumed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idNoArc tab id from list_tabs. Omit to use this agent's current tab. A tool that changes a tab will not fall back to the tab the user is looking at, so pass this or call open_url first.
timeout_msNoHow long to wait for loading. Capped at 30000ms so the call cannot outlive a client's request timeout. To wait longer, call this again.
wait_until_loadedNoWait for the page to finish loading before returning

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / tab_id / description
      Previous value: -"Arc tab id from list_tabs. Omit to use this agent's current tab, falling back to whatever tab is active in Arc."New value: +"Arc tab id from list_tabs. Omit to use this agent's current tab. A tool that changes a tab will not fall back to the tab the user is looking at, so pass this or call open_url first."
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeout_ms / description
      Previous value: -"How long to wait for loading. Capped at 30000ms, because a longer call is killed by the client before it can answer. To wait longer, call wait_for_load again: repeated short waits each hand back a real readyState and url, which one long wait does not."New value: +"How long to wait for loading. Capped at 30000ms so the call cannot outlive a client's request timeout. To wait longer, call this again."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving real room for the description to add value, and it does: it discloses that navigation actually goes through the page (enabling background-tab use), and that the result is verified against the tab URL rather than assumed. That verification detail is genuine behavioral context not present in any structured field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence is a slightly sprawling clause chain, but every element (background-tab capability, URL verification) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a navigation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the mechanism and the verification behavior an agent would want to know. It stops short of describing return values or failure modes, but the safety profile is carried by annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents tab_id, timeout_ms, and wait_until_loaded. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Navigate a tab back in history'), which is immediately distinguishable from go_forward. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring the back/forward pairing, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when this is preferable by contrasting it with Arc's own back command on background tabs, but it never states when to use this versus go_forward, reload_tab, or switch_to_tab. The tab_id guidance (omit for current tab, or call open_url first) lives in the schema rather than the description, so usage guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools