Navigate the active browser tab to any URL. Missing schemes default to https:// (http:// for localhost), with optional page snapshot return.
Navigate the connected tab to a URL. A missing scheme defaults to https:// (http:// for localhost).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to navigate to | |
| 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 mutation scope is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: scheme normalization (https:// default, http:// for localhost), which is not derivable from annotations or the schema.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scheme caveat second. No filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 simple navigate action with 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose plus the key normalization quirk. It omits loading/blocking behavior and failure semantics, which are minor for this tool class.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the 'url' parameter by documenting scheme-defaulting rules that the schema does not state. It does not clarify failure/timeout behavior for the url.
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 ('Navigate') and resource ('the connected tab') plus the target ('a URL'), which separates it from siblings like browser_go_back, browser_reload, and browser_tab_new. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for loading a new page in the current tab. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling (reload, tab_new, go_back) to prefer for adjacent tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.