Navigate one step back in browser history to return to the previous page during automated Chromium browsing and web task flows.
Navigate one step back.
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_back"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the action: no mention of what happens when there is no prior history, whether it waits for the page to load, or whether it affects tab state. For a navigation tool these are the traits an agent most needs.
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?
Four words, front-loaded, with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, so it loses a point for under-specification rather than verbosity.
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-param tool with no output schema, the missing pieces are the edge cases: behavior at the start of history, load-wait semantics, and failure signaling. Those gaps leave an agent able to call it but unable to predict its result.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.
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?
"Navigate one step back" names a specific action (navigate) and direction (back), and the browser_ prefix plus siblings like browser_open and browser_switch_tab make the resource unambiguous. It stops short of saying history back specifically, but an agent can identify the operation.
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 action – go back in browsing history – but there is no statement of when to prefer it over browser_open with a URL, browser_tabs, or browser_switch_tab. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.