Navigate Firefox or Chromium to a given URL, optionally specifying a tab or browser profile, so agents can open pages for reading, clicking, or form filling.
Navigate to URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: whether it waits for page load, what happens on a failed navigation, whether it navigates in the current tab or a new one, or how it interacts with the session/profile state.
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 four-word description is certainly concise and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity — there is no wasted sentence because there is essentially only one.
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 state-mutating browser-navigation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two of three params undocumented, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell whether navigation waits, which tab context is affected, or what a failure looks like.
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 only 33% (just the optional 'profile' param), and the description adds no meaning for 'url' or 'tab'. With low coverage the description should compensate by explaining what 'tab' selects and how navigation interacts with profiles, but it says nothing.
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 ('Navigate') and resource ('URL'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like sleeper_back, sleeper_newtab or sleeper_click. It does not, however, contrast itself with the similarly-navigation-oriented siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sleeper_newtab for opening a fresh tab. 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.