Return to the previously visited page in the browser session. Use this to navigate backward after actions like clicks or form submissions.
Navigate back in browser history.
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": "go_back"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core action but does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., behavior when no history exists, page reloads, or return value). For a simple navigation action this is acceptable but minimal.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function, making it appropriately concise.
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?
Given no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose well. It does not address edge conditions or return values, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this gap minor.
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 has zero parameters, so the rubric's baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter information that the description needs to add.
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 states a clear action ('navigate back') and target resource ('browser history'), making the tool's function obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like go_forward by specifying 'back', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 description: an agent would use this when wanting to move backward in browser history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over go_forward or navigate, and no mention of prerequisites such as existing history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.