Navigate to a target URL in an antidetect browser profile, using a configurable wait condition until the page is ready.
Navigate to a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target URL | |
| wait_until | No | Wait strategy | domcontentloaded |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only restates that the tool navigates; it does not disclose whether an active browser connection is required, what wait behavior is used, whether a new tab is opened, or what happens on failure.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the main verb is front-loaded. It borders on under-specification, so it does not earn a 5, but it is structurally very concise.
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 simple navigation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally viable: the required parameter and wait strategy are documented. However, it still omits the browser-connection prerequisite and does not help an agent choose among the many browser sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented sufficiently for the baseline. The description adds no extra meaning about the URL or wait strategy, and the enum values for wait_until are not explained, but the schema already covers the basic semantics.
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 a specific action ('Navigate') and its target resource ('a URL'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling navigation tools like browser_go_back, browser_reload, or browser_get_url, which keeps it from a 5.
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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_go_back, browser_reload, or browser_connect. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing navigation over other browser actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.