Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
edge-mcp

edge-mcp

by hualang-C
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

navigate

Direct the active Edge browser tab to a specified URL and choose when the page load is complete, such as page load, DOM content, or network idle.

Instructions

Navigate the active Edge tab 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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAbsolute URL, e.g. https://example.com
waitUntilNoWhen to consider navigation finished: load (default), domcontentloaded, networkidle0 (500ms no requests), networkidle2 (500ms with <=2 requests)load

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It never states that the current page contents are replaced, what happens on failure or timeout, or whether in-flight page state is lost. For a state-mutating browser action with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written; the issue is missing content rather than excess wording.

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 tool that mutates the active tab's state, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about effects and failure behavior. Given the 100% schema coverage the parameters are fine, but the behavioral envelope is not covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both url and waitUntil fully documented including enum semantics and the default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 target (the active Edge tab) plus the resource, a URL. Combined with the sibling list (go_back, go_forward, reload, new_tab, switch_tab), the 'active tab' phrasing makes it differentiable from history-navigation and tab-management tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is only implied usage: 'active Edge tab' hints that existing-tab navigation is the job, leaving new_tab/switch_tab as the obvious alternatives. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not guidance is given.

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