Navigate the active browser to a target URL using existing logged-in sessions, enabling AI assistants to open local or authenticated pages without re-authentication.
Navigate the active browser to a URL (e.g. http://localhost:3000, https://github.com) using existing logged-in sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target URL | |
| waitUntil | No | networkidle2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — navigation reuses existing logged-in sessions rather than a fresh context — but omits failure behavior, what happens when no browser is active, and how waitUntil affects timing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and target first, and the inline example URLs add practical value without bloat. Nothing extraneous, though it could have spent the same space on the missing waitUntil semantics.
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?
For a simple two-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the core action is covered, but the waitUntil behavior and error/active-session edge cases are unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose timing parameter materially changes its behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: url is documented as 'Target URL' and waitUntil has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the undocumented enum parameter or explain the default networkidle2.
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?
States a specific verb (Navigate) and resource (the active browser) with concrete example URLs. The word 'active' implicitly separates it from tab-creating siblings like vibeside_new_tab, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as vibeside_new_tab, vibeside_switch_tab, or vibeside_connect. The agent must infer that this drives the current tab rather than opening a new one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.