Retrieve the active browser URL in Selenium automation to verify navigation, assert expected page addresses, and support test debugging.
Return the current URL.
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": "get_current_url"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, the description does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if no page is open), waiting semantics, or the exact format of the returned URL. With zero annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.
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?
The entire definition is a single five-word sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a trivial return value. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core function but omits context such as prerequisites (e.g., an active page) and the return value's format. These are minor gaps for such a simple tool but still leave some ambiguity. Slightly more context would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to compensate for any missing schema. No parameter information is 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?
The description clearly specifies the operation ('Return') and the resource ('the current URL'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_page_source or get_page_title, which target different resources. Even without an explicit contrast, the tool's function is obvious.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_page_source or navigate. The only signal is the description itself, which implies a simple read after a page has been loaded. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.