Move forward to the next page in browser history; optionally return a snapshot to confirm the page loaded.
Go forward to the next page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot | No | Also return the page snapshot after the action (default: yes). Use it when you need to see the result right away. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / snapshotAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Also return the page snapshot after the action (default: yes). Use it when you need to see the result right away.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say what happens when there is no forward history, whether it waits for the page to load, or that it operates on browser history rather than page content.
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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 one-parameter navigation tool whose parameter is fully documented in the schema and whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is minimally viable. It still omits the failure condition (no forward entry) and the history-vs-page distinction an agent would benefit from.
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?
There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the snapshot flag and its default. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about the parameter, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.
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 resource: navigating the browser history forward one entry. It is clear enough to distinguish from browser_go_back, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with its siblings, and 'next page' is slightly ambiguous versus in-page pagination.
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 when-to-use guidance, no condition stating that forward history must exist, and no mention of the browser_go_back/browser_navigate alternatives. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.