WaveXisMCP

wavexis_forward

Go forward one step in the browser history to restore the page left after navigating back.

Instructions

Navigate forward one step in the browser history.

Use after wavexis_back to restore a page; use wavexis_navigate for direct URL navigation instead.

Side effects: Changes the active page to the next history entry; may trigger network requests if that page was not cached. Returns: JSON string with keys: 'status' ('ok'/'error').

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "wavexis_forward"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description adds valuable context: side effects (changes active page, may trigger network requests) and the return format (JSON with status). It does not cover error cases explicitly, but the return format implies errors.

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?

The description is very concise: four sentences each serving a distinct purpose (action, usage, side effects, return). No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple navigation tool, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, side effects, and return format. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., session must exist, forward history), but the side effects and return error status imply these. With annotations lacking transparency, this is adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. The only parameter, session_id, is described in the schema as 'Active session ID', and the tool description does not elaborate on its context or relationship to other tools. With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter context would be beneficial.

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?

The description clearly states 'Navigate forward one step in the browser history' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from wavexis_back and wavexis_navigate by mentioning their appropriate use cases.

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 description explicitly says to use this after wavexis_back to restore a page and suggests wavexis_navigate for direct URL navigation. It does not mention when not to use (e.g., no forward history), but the guidance is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server