Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arc-cdp-mcp

arc-cdp-mcp

by chmodami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Navegar

arc_navigate

Open a URL in the Arc browser, reusing the active tab or opening a new tab when specified.

Instructions

Abre uma URL no Arc. Por padrão reusa a aba ativa; passe newTab para abrir outra.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "arc_navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tabIdNoAba alvo. Omita para usar a aba própria ativa (nunca uma aba do usuário).
newTabNoAbrir em aba nova em vez de reusar a ativa.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the default tab-reuse behavior and the newTab override. It does not mention tabId targeting or the 'never a user's tab' constraint, though that is present in the schema. Overall, it covers the primary behavior but leaves some behavioral nuances undisclosed.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides the key behavioral option. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple navigation tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention potential return values, error conditions, or the significance of tabId (which the schema covers). Given the simplicity, the description could be more complete, but it's not critically deficient.

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 coverage is 67% (url lacks a description, tabId and newTab have descriptions). The description adds meaning for newTab ('passe newTab para abrir outra') and clarifies the default behavior, which relates to tabId. The url parameter is self-evident, so the description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Abre uma URL no Arc') and the resource (URL, Arc browser). It's distinct from sibling tools like arc_click or arc_type, which are interaction tools, making it unambiguous as the navigation tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides usage context: default reuse of active tab and the newTab option to override. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over other tools or any exclusions (e.g., when not to use it).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools