Google Flow Browser MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flow_open

Navigate the already-connected browser to a Google Flow URL without reconnecting; only https://flow.google.com/... URLs are accepted, with an optional post-load wait.

Instructions

Navigate the already-connected browser to a Google Flow URL without reconnecting. Only https://flow.google.com/... URLs are allowed (other hosts rejected).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "flow_open"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Exact Flow URL to navigate to. Defaults to the configured flowUrl when omitted.
`waitFor`	No	Extra ms to wait after load (clamped 0-15000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: navigation reuses the existing connection and a host allowlist rejects anything that is not https://flow.google.com/... It omits what happens if no session exists or if navigation fails, so it is not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the host restriction immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 low-complexity navigation tool with only two well-documented parameters, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the input constraint. It does not say what the call returns or how failures surface, which is the only remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint on the url parameter (only https://flow.google.com/... accepted, other hosts rejected) that the schema does not state. The waitFor parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb (navigate) plus resource (already-connected browser to a Flow URL), and the phrase 'without reconnecting' implicitly separates it from flow_connect and flow_open_tools_gallery. An agent can select it correctly without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The precondition 'already-connected browser' and 'without reconnecting' tell the agent this is for an existing session rather than establishing one, which routes it away from flow_connect. It never names the alternative explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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