Skip to main content
Glama

puppeteer_page_history

Track and retrieve the history of visited URLs in chronological order, enabling clear monitoring of web navigation activities within automated browser sessions.

Instructions

Get the history of visited URLs, most recent urls first

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • index.ts:34-42 (registration)
    Registration of the 'puppeteer_page_history' tool, including its name, description, and input schema (no input parameters required). Note: No dedicated handler case in handleToolCall; falls to default.
    {
      name: "puppeteer_page_history",
      description: "Get the history of visited URLs, most recent urls first",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: [],
      },
    },
  • Input schema for puppeteer_page_history tool: an empty object with no required properties.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {},
      required: [],
    },
  • Global urlHistory array declared, likely intended to store visited URLs for the puppeteer_page_history tool (though not populated in the provided code).
    const urlHistory: Array<string> = [];
  • Potential handler logic for retrieving page history using urlHistory.reverse().join('\n'), though the case is labeled 'page_history' not 'puppeteer_page_history'. May be intended for this tool.
    case "page_history":
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: urlHistory.reverse().join("\n"),
          },
        ],
        isError: false,
      };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether it requires an active Puppeteer session, if it returns a list or object, potential errors (e.g., no page open), or performance implications. This is inadequate for a 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Get the history') and adds a useful ordering detail ('most recent urls first'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's potential complexity (interacting with browser history), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return format, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., needing a page object). For a tool with rich behavioral context needs, this is insufficient.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools. No additional parameter context is required or provided.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('history of visited URLs'), and specifies ordering ('most recent urls first'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'puppeteer_navigate' or 'make_http_request', but the focus on history retrieval is distinct enough for a 4.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'semantic_search_requests'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jwaldor/mcp-scrape-copilot'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server