Navigate back to the previous page in the active browser tab, returning to the prior history entry after moving forward.
Go back to the previous page
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about what happens when there is no history entry (error vs. silent no-op), whether it resolves only after the page loads, or whether a history entry is consumed on failure.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a deliberate trade-off.
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?
For a zero-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the essentials are arguably covered. However, with no annotations, the agent still cannot tell the return value or the no-history edge case, which matters for a history-mutating action.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics for the description to explain. The empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous for an agent to get wrong.
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?
States a specific verb ('Go back') and target ('the previous page'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling browser_go_forward. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the operation is self-evident from the name-plus-description pairing.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus browser_navigate or browser_go_forward, and no precondition such as 'only valid after prior navigation'. Usage is only implied by the tool name and browser conventions, leaving the agent to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.