Skip to main content
Glama
livoras

Better Playwright MCP

by livoras

browserNavigate

Directs a web page to a specified URL using a page ID, with optional wait time for snapshot capture, enabling precise browser navigation within automation workflows.

Instructions

导航到指定URL

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageIdYes页面ID
urlYes要导航的URL
waitForTimeoutNo操作后等待获取快照的延迟时间(毫秒,默认2000)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that ensures a tab is open and navigates to the specified URL, includes snapshot in response and adds Playwright code snippet.
    handle: async (context, params, response) => {
        const tab = await context.ensureTab();
        await tab.navigate(params.url);
        response.setIncludeSnapshot();
        response.addCode(`await page.goto('${params.url}');`);
    },
  • Schema definition for the browser_navigate tool including name, title, description, Zod input schema for 'url', and destructive type.
    schema: {
        name: 'browser_navigate',
        title: 'Navigate to a URL',
        description: 'Navigate to a URL',
        inputSchema: z.object({
            url: z.string().describe('The URL to navigate to'),
        }),
        type: 'destructive',
    },
  • lib/tools.js:24-24 (registration)
    Import of the navigate.js module which defines the browser_navigate tool.
    import navigate from './tools/navigate.js';
  • lib/tools.js:41-41 (registration)
    Spreading the navigate tools (including browser_navigate) into the allTools array for global tool registration.
    ...navigate,
  • Initialization of the backend's tools list using filteredTools, which includes browser_navigate, for MCP tool exposure.
    this._tools = filteredTools(config);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the navigation action without mentioning what happens after navigation (e.g., whether it waits for page load, returns a snapshot, or handles errors). It doesn't address permissions, rate limits, or side effects like changing browser state. For a navigation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately communicates what the tool does without any preamble or secondary information.

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 the complexity of browser navigation (which involves state changes, potential errors, and timing considerations), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description that only states the basic action, important context is missing. The agent doesn't know what the tool returns, how it handles navigation failures, or what the waitForTimeout parameter actually affects in practice.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (pageId, url, waitForTimeout) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('导航到' - navigate to) and the target resource ('指定URL' - specified URL), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browserNavigateBack and browserNavigateForward by specifying forward navigation to a URL. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this operates within a browser context, which is implied but could be more specific.

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 (like needing an active page), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like createPage (which might also navigate). Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and parameters alone.

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/livoras/better-playwright-mcp'

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