Go back to the previous page in browser history, allowing reverse navigation in automated Chromium sessions.
Go back in browser 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": "chrome_go_back"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning what happens if there is no history, whether it waits for page load, or how it affects the current tab. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible.
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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for a simple browser back action. However, it does not address edge cases like empty history or navigation behavior, though these are relatively minor gaps for such a straightforward 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and it correctly omits any parameter-related information.
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 browser history' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action of navigating backward through the browser's history. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool chrome_go_forward by explicitly stating the backward direction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chrome_navigate or chrome_reload, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The only contextual cue is the tool name itself, which is insufficient for clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.