Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chrome

chrome

by wellrccity
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Navigate

navigate

Opens URLs, moves back or forward, reloads, or stops the active browser tab and waits for the requested load state; set newTab to open in a new tab.

Instructions

Open a URL, go back/forward, reload or stop the active tab. Waits for the requested load state. Use newTab=true to open in a new tab.

Tool call template

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": "navigate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL for action="goto". A bare domain is upgraded to https://.
tabIdNo
actionNogoto
activeNoFocus the tab after navigating. Default true.
newTabNoOpen the URL in a new tab.
timeoutNo
waitUntilNodomcontentloaded
bypassCacheNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the blocking semantics ('Waits for the requested load state'), but omits what happens on timeout, failure behavior, permission requirements, or that bypassCache/timeout alter the wait.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the action set front-loaded and the newTab tip last. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 8-parameter, no-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core actions but is silent on several parameters and on error/timeout behavior. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is only 38%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies url, action values, newTab, and links waitUntil to the 'requested load state', but leaves tabId, active, timeout, and bypassCache entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (navigate) plus the enumerated actions (goto/back/forward/reload/stop) and the resource (URL / active tab). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to route between.

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 only guidance is a parameter tip ('Use newTab=true to open in a new tab'), which is invocation detail rather than when-to-use context. There is no mention of when to prefer this over siblings like wait_for, tabs, or evaluate, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools