Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zen-browser

zen-browser

by grapedjuice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

navigate

Moves a Zen browser tab to a URL and waits for it to load, or steps back and forward through page history.

Instructions

Navigate a tab to a URL and wait for it to load. Pass "back" or "forward" to move through history.

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": "navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tabIdNoTab to act on. Defaults to the active tab of the focused Zen window.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important blocking behavior ("wait for it to load") and the special back/forward values. It says nothing about timeouts, load-failure behavior, redirects, or what is returned on completion, which matters for an unannotated navigation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, second sentence covering the special-value case. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, blocking semantics, and the non-obvious url values, which is close to sufficient. Only failure/timeout behavior is left unstated, a minor gap for this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% — tabId is documented in the schema but url is not, and the description fills exactly that gap by explaining that url accepts the literals "back" or "forward" in addition to a URL. That is a meaningful semantic addition an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 (a tab to a URL) and adds the history-navigation mode, making it unmistakable against siblings like tabs_create or screenshot. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but no other listed tool could be confused with it.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: use this to load a URL in an existing tab. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer tabs_create (open a new tab) instead, no prerequisite notes, and no exclusion for cases like already-loaded pages or which tab is targeted by default.

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