Read the current page URL to identify or verify the active browser page; optionally target a specific page or session, defaulting to the active context.
Read the current page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | No | Defaults to the active page | |
| sessionId | No | Defaults to the active session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.24Input schema / properties / pageId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stable page ID; defaults to the session active page"New value: +"Defaults to the active page"Input schema / properties / sessionId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional session ID; defaults to this MCP client active session"New value: +"Defaults to the active session"v2026.8.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, and the description adds only the word 'current', which restates the default-scoping already implied by the schema. It does not say what is returned (a URL string), what happens when no page is open or the session is disconnected, or whether it reflects the top-level frame vs. iframes.
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 zero padding, which is appropriate for a trivial getter. It could have used one additional clause (return type or failure behavior) without becoming verbose, so it is efficient but slightly under-filled.
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 zero-required-parameter getter this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description is the only place that could state the return value (URL string) and behavior when the page is missing. Those omissions leave a small but real gap for correct invocation and result handling.
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 100% and both parameters are optional with explicit fallback behavior ('Defaults to the active page/session'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for well-documented schemas.
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 and resource ('Read the current page URL'), which is unambiguous and immediately actionable. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings such as nex_browser_page_title or nex_browser_connection_info, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and purpose – this is the obvious tool when an agent needs the URL of the active page. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over nex_browser_evaluate or nex_browser_connection_info, and no mention of preconditions (e.g. a connected session or open page).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.