Go back to the previous page in the browser history for a specified tab, enabling automated web testing and workflow replay.
History back.
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": "browser_go_back"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state any side effects, such as whether the page reloads, waits for navigation, or affects browser state. The description is completely devoid of behavioral traits beyond the implied action.
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 extremely terse at two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information. Every sentence should add value; these words add almost none beyond the name.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least explain the purpose and parameter clearly. It does neither, making it completely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.
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 input schema has one parameter (tabId) with schema description coverage at 0%. The description provides no information about tabId's meaning, constraints, or usage. This is a critical gap for a tool with a single parameter.
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 'History back' is a near-tautology of the tool name, providing minimal clarification. It vaguely indicates navigation backward in browser history but lacks specificity about what resource or action is involved, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like browser_go_forward.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.