lyra-browser

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reload_page

Refresh the current browser page and return HTTP status and content type, like navigate, to recover stale content or re-fetch an updated page state.

Instructions

Reload the current page. Reports http_status and content_type like navigate.

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": "reload_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`reason`	No
`confirm`	No
`wait_until`	No	domcontentloaded

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it is thin: it discloses nothing about whether reload discards form/editor state, whether it re-fetches from cache or network, or what the 'confirm' flag guards against. Reporting http_status/content_type is return info that the output schema already handles.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. There is minimal waste, though the second sentence about reported fields is redundant given the output schema exists.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema covers return values, but three undocumented parameters with no annotations leave real gaps. The 'confirm' parameter in particular hints at destructive or disruptive behavior that the description never explains, which is inadequate for a state-changing browser action.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% across three parameters (reason, confirm, wait_until), and the description explains none of them. Notably it never addresses 'confirm' (a boolean whose purpose is opaque) or the semantics/valid values of 'wait_until', leaving the caller with no guidance.

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+resource ('Reload the current page'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'navigate' (which goes to a new URL). The reference to reporting http_status/content_type 'like navigate' further clarifies its scope. It stops short of an explicit contrast with navigate/go_back, so no strong sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to reload versus calling navigate again, go_back, or wait_for. The only comparative statement is about output format ('like navigate'), not about when to select this tool. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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