Navigate the active browser tab to its previous page in history, enabling easy backward navigation during automated tasks.
Go back in the active tab's history.
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_back"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core action, but does not disclose edge-case behavior, such as what happens when the active tab has no history, whether the action triggers navigation events, or how it interacts with the current page state. This is a real gap for an un-annotated tool.
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, tight sentence with zero wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. Nothing is verbose or redundant.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete — an agent knows exactly what happens. The only gap is edge-case behavior (empty history), which is minor given the simplicity of the operation.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and no schema-coverage burden to compensate for. The description correctly says nothing about parameters because there are none.
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 'Go back in the active tab's history' names a specific verb and resource, and naturally distinguishes from siblings like browser_forward (go forward) and browser_navigate (direct navigation). An agent can immediately tell what this does and how it differs from its neighbors.
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?
The usage context is implied — an agent would call this after navigating somewhere — but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose back over navigate, forward, or reload. No exclusions or alternatives are named, though for such a simple operation the implied usage is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.