Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the navigation action but doesn't describe what happens if there's no forward history (does it fail silently? return an error?), whether it waits for page load, or what the expected outcome is. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests more information exists elsewhere, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral details.

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 concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical reference to documentation is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 this is a navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether it returns anything, or what errors might occur. The reference to 'browser_docs' acknowledges incompleteness but doesn't provide the needed information directly.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

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 clearly states the action ('Navigate forward in history') and identifies the resource (browser history). It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_go_back' by specifying forward direction. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other navigation tools like 'browser_navigate' or 'browser_reload' beyond the forward movement aspect.

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?

The description implies usage context by referencing 'browser_docs' for more information, suggesting there are additional guidelines available elsewhere. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_navigate' for new URLs or 'browser_go_back' for backward navigation. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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