browser_navigateControl the active browser tab by going back, forward, reloading, closing, or opening a new tab in Chrome or Brave. Use it to direct navigation during screen-aware tasks.
Navigate the active tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. Critically, 'close' is a destructive action that is never flagged as such, and there is no mention of what happens when back/forward has no history, whether reload discards form state, or whether 'new' opens a tab or a window.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. However, for a five-action tool this brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the title is doing work the description should be doing.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is the only prose an agent gets, and it omits the action set, the target of each action, and the result of destructive ones. It is not adequate for a multi-mode browser control tool.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage — only bare enum values — and the description adds no meaning to any of them. It never clarifies that 'new' creates a tab, that 'close' targets the active tab, or what state changes each action produces.
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 verb+resource pair 'Navigate the active tab' is present, but it is generic and does not enumerate the five actions the enum supports. It also under-describes two of them: 'close' and 'new' are tab lifecycle operations, not navigation, so the stated purpose is partly inaccurate. It gives no differentiation from siblings like browser_open, browser_tabs, or browser_switch_tab.
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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as browser_switch_tab or browser_open, which are the natural siblings for tab-related tasks. The agent must infer everything from the enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.