Return to the previous page in the current tab. Use when you need to navigate to the last viewed page in browser history.
Go back to the previous page in the current tab.
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": "back"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the navigation direction. It says nothing about failure when there is no history, whether the action waits for the page to load, or whether it can be blocked by the page — all traits an agent would need for a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name. Every word (direction, target, tab scope) earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output navigation tool, the description is essentially sufficient: the agent knows the direction and the tab scope. The only missing piece is the no-history / failure edge case, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and the empty schema matches the description.
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?
States a specific verb ('Go back') and target ('the previous page'), and scopes it to 'the current tab', which disambiguates from a browser-wide history action. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like 'goto' (forward/direct navigation), so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.
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?
Usage is implied by the navigation-history framing ('previous page'), which tells the agent this is history traversal rather than direct addressing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-'goto' guidance and no stated preconditions (e.g., behavior when no prior history exists), leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.