Go forward to the next page
Go forward to the next 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_forward"
}
}| 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 burden, yet it says nothing about behavior when no forward history exists (error vs. no-op) or whether it waits for the page to finish loading. Only the bare action is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but its brevity edges into under-specification rather than being ideally sized for a navigation tool. Nothing is wasted, but little is said.
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?
The tool is structurally simple (zero params, no output schema), so minimal description is defensible, but with no annotations the description should at least cover the no-forward-history behavior to be fully adequate. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. Nothing is mismatched or undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and navigation action ("Go forward to the next page"), which clearly identifies browser history traversal and implicitly contrasts with the sibling browser_go_back. It does not explicitly name the sibling or scope, but the resource and direction are unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus browser_navigate, browser_reload, or browser_go_back, nor on preconditions such as having forward history available. The agent must infer usage and the failure case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.