Go back to the previous page in a browser session's history. Use it to return to an earlier page after following a link or to reverse an unwanted navigation.
Go back to the previous page in the history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | Session id (default "default"). Each session is an isolated browser (own cookies, tabs) that runs in parallel with the others. Created on first use. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter, but it adds nothing beyond the mechanical action. It does not say what happens if there is no prior history (error vs no-op), whether the action is reversible, or that the session is isolated — all relevant for a destructive navigation.
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 no filler. It is arguably too terse for the tool's risk profile, but that is a completeness issue 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 simple one-parameter navigation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is barely sufficient. The notable gap is the no-history edge case, which an agent calling this needs to anticipate.
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 the single 'session' parameter is fully documented there, including default and isolation semantics. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('go back to the previous page') with the scope 'in the history', which cleanly separates it from the sibling browser_navigate (forward navigation). It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 guidance on when to use this versus browser_navigate or browser_tabs, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing history entry. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.