Skip to main content
Glama

browser_go_back

Navigate to the previous page in a browser instance. This tool helps users return to prior web pages during concurrent browsing sessions.

Instructions

Go back to the previous page

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instanceIdYesInstance ID

Implementation Reference

  • Implements the core logic for the 'browser_go_back' tool by retrieving the browser instance and calling page.goBack(). Handles errors and returns ToolResult.
    private async goBack(instanceId: string): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const instance = this.browserManager.getInstance(instanceId);
      if (!instance) {
        return { success: false, error: `Instance ${instanceId} not found` };
      }
    
      try {
        await instance.page.goBack();
        return {
          success: true,
          data: { url: instance.page.url() },
          instanceId
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: `Go back failed: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : error}`,
          instanceId
        };
      }
    }
  • Defines the tool schema including name, description, and input schema requiring 'instanceId'.
      name: 'browser_go_back',
      description: 'Go back to the previous page',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          instanceId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Instance ID'
          }
        },
        required: ['instanceId']
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:524-526 (registration)
    Registers the tool handler in the executeTools switch statement, dispatching to the goBack method.
    case 'browser_go_back':
      return await this.goBack(args.instanceId);
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if no previous page exists), whether it waits for navigation to complete, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise, earning its place with zero waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a browser navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., success/failure conditions, waiting), prerequisites, and return values. For a tool that likely involves state changes and potential errors, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'instanceId' documented as 'Instance ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what an instance represents or how to obtain it. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Go back') and the target ('to the previous page'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'browser_go_forward', though the distinction is obvious from the names. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing browser instance with navigation history), exclusions (e.g., not applicable if no previous page exists), or comparisons with siblings like 'browser_navigate' or 'browser_go_forward'. Usage is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sailaoda/concurrent-browser-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server