Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
browser-guard-mcp

browser-guard-mcp

by egoring
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_navigate

Read-only

Navigate to a URL only if it passes the allowlist, returning the final URL and page title.

Instructions

허용목록을 통과한 URL로 이동한다. 반환: 최종 URL·페이지 제목.

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": "browser_navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes이동할 주소 (허용 도메인 또는 동봉 데모 사이트 경로)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the allowlist restriction and the exact return values (final URL and page title). It does not cover redirect or failure behavior, but the annotation bar lowers that burden.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It states the action, the constraint, and the return value efficiently.

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?

For a single-parameter navigation tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is adequately complete: it names the target, the allowlist constraint, and return values. It could add failure behavior for non-allowed URLs, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the url parameter. The description's mention of moving to an allowed URL adds little beyond the schema's '허용 도메인 또는 동봉 데모 사이트 경로' wording, so the 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 uses a specific verb (이동한다) and resource (허용목록을 통과한 URL) and clearly states the return values. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_fill, and browser_screenshot.

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 is clear that this tool is used to navigate to a URL, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The allowlist constraint is mentioned, but relationship to browser_guard_status or browser_audit_log is not addressed.

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