Mithwire MCP

browser_navigate

Navigate a Chromium browser to a URL within a session, with an optional wait time for page load before automation steps.

Instructions

Navigate to a URL.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "browser_navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`wait_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: it doesn't say whether navigation blocks until load, what counts as success/failure, how the defaulted wait_seconds behaves, or whether the URL must be absolute. This is a bare restatement of the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, at this length it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness, so it only earns a middle score.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a foundational navigation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition is missing critical context: session requirements, load/wait semantics, and error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It never explains that session_id identifies the target browser session or that wait_seconds is a post-navigation delay, leaving all three parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Navigate to a URL'), so an agent immediately knows this performs navigation. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as browser_back, browser_forward, browser_reload, or browser_url, which all operate on the same tab URL concept.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an active session_id), and no routing to alternatives like browser_back/reload for history navigation. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server