Retrieve the active page's URL from the browser session to verify navigation, capture links, or store state.
Get the current page URL
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "browser_get_url"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | No | Browser session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. However, it merely restates the tool name without mentioning read-only nature, error handling, or return format. It adds no information beyond the obvious, unlike tools that disclose side effects or limitations.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, 'Get the current page URL', with no superfluous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal, matching the tool's trivial complexity.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core function adequately but omits details like the return format (e.g., full URL string) and behavior when no page is loaded. Given the low complexity, it is mostly complete but could benefit from a note about return values.
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?
The input schema documents the only parameter 'sessionId' with description 'Browser session ID', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not mention or elaborate on this parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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?
The description 'Get the current page URL' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_get_title or browser_get_text by explicitly targeting the URL, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_title or browser_snapshot. It lacks explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name, which is insufficient for higher scoring.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.