Skip to main content
Glama
escapeWu

chrome-agent-bridge

by escapeWu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Navigate Chrome tab

browser_navigate

Open HTTP, HTTPS, file, or about:blank URLs in an existing Chrome tab to let agents control the current page.

Instructions

Navigate an existing tab to an HTTP, HTTPS, file, or about:blank URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tabIdYes
browserNoWhich connected Chrome to use: an instanceId or label from browser_list_instances. Required when more than one browser is connected; session-based tools infer it from their sessionId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / browser
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which connected Chrome to use: an instanceId or label from browser_list_instances. Required when more than one browser is connected; session-based tools infer it from their sessionId.",
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose what happens if the URL is already loaded, whether navigation is blocking, whether history is affected, or any error behavior for a mutation-like operation on an existing tab.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is precise and contains no wasted words.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits required behavior around tab existence, multiple-browser resolution, and navigation side effects that an agent would need.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%; tabId has no schema description, but the description implies the target is an existing tab. The browser parameter is partly covered by the schema description referencing browser_list_instances, and the url formats are listed in the description, adding some value.

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 (navigate) and resource (existing tab) with accepted URL schemes. It is differentiable from browser_open_tab, though the description does not explicitly name that sibling to clarify the distinction.

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?

The word 'existing tab' implies the tab must already be open, hinting that browser_open_tab is the alternative for new tabs, but this is never stated. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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