navigator_statusGet browser automation status in a single call. Retrieve version, active sessions, scope, providers, and limits to confirm environment readiness.
One-call status: version, sessions, scope, providers, limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It only lists what is included (version, sessions, scope, providers, limits) and mentions 'one-call' suggesting efficiency, but does not explain what the output looks like (despite an output schema) or any side effects. For a read-only status tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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?
The description is extremely concise at seven words, front-loading the core purpose ('One-call status') and listing key fields. It is efficient with no waste, though it could benefit from a sentence on return format.
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 status tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It doesn't explain the return structure in detail, but the output schema likely does. Given the simplicity, it covers what an agent needs to know for invocation.
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 description need not explain any. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds context about what the call returns, which is helpful. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the tool provides status information in a single call, listing key aspects: version, sessions, scope, providers, limits. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status rather than actions or navigation.
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 description implies use when a quick status overview is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like usage_report or browser_session_list. Context signals show it's a zero-parameter tool, so usage is straightforward, but clarity could be improved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.