Retrieve the current browser tab's full URL, including query string and fragment, to verify where a click or redirect landed. Use wait_for_page to wait for URL changes.
Return the URL of the current tab, including any query string and fragment. Use it to confirm where a click or redirect landed; to wait until the URL changes, use wait_for_page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior burden. It tells the agent the return includes query string and fragment, which is meaningful. However it does not state whether this is a synchronous read, whether it reflects the active frame vs top-level document, or what happens when no page is loaded — gaps for a zero-arg read tool with no annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the return definition followed immediately by the usage/alternative. No filler words, every clause 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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (URL plus query string and fragment) and the primary use case. It stops short of covering mode of operation (sync/async, frame scope, no-page behavior), which would be needed for a perfect score given the absence of annotations and output schema.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than params; the 'current tab' scope is implicit context that helps interpret the call in a multi-tab session, but no param compensation is required.
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 ('Return') and resource ('the URL of the current tab'), and specifies the scope ('including any query string and fragment'). It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling get_title and from navigate/wait_for_page without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly names the use case ('confirm where a click or redirect landed') and names the alternative for the adjacent need ('to wait until the URL changes, use wait_for_page'). Both when-to-use and which-alternative are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.