Refresh the active browser page to retrieve the latest content and reset page state during automated browsing.
Reload the current page.
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": "reload"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects such as loss of unsaved form data, clearing of transient state, or that the page is re-fetched from the server. This is minimal transparency for an action that can disrupt the current page state.
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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the zero-parameter schema, lack of output schema, and straightforward action, the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to know what the tool does and how to invoke it. Some context on expected behavior (e.g., whether it waits for page load) could improve completeness, but it is not critical for basic use.
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, and the schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies that no inputs are needed. Nothing extra is required.
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 'Reload the current page.' uses a specific verb (reload) and a clear resource (current page). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like go_forward, go_back, and open_page, as none of those imply refreshing the current document.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or notes on when reload is appropriate (e.g., vs. re-opening the page). The implied usage is clear, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.