Charlotte

charlotte_forward

Navigate forward in browser history to retrieve a structured page representation, with optional detail levels for content analysis.

Instructions

Navigate forward in browser history. Returns page representation after navigation.

Tool call template

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": "charlotte_forward"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	"minimal" (default), "summary" (includes content context), "full" (includes all text content)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.0Aug 10, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedv0.6.3May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns page representation after navigation'), but does not specify edge cases like what happens when there is no forward history, or how 'page representation' is structured. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then describes the return value, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential purpose and return behavior. It could mention edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'detail' parameter, with enum values and descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter information, but the schema fully documents it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Navigate forward in browser history', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like charlotte_back (backward navigation) and charlotte_navigate (URL navigation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool (when the user wants to go forward in browser history). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.