Open a URL in the current Chromium tab or, optionally, a new tab, then return tab details and all tab IDs for switching.
导航到 URL。默认当前 tab；new_tab=true 新开 tab 并自动切换为操作指针。返回当前 tab 信息与全部 tabs 清单（switch 需要 tab_id）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要导航到的 URL（http:// 或 https:// 开头） | |
| new_tab | No | 在新 tab 打开并切换操作指针 | |
| timeout | No | 页面加载超时（秒，可选）。默认 200 秒。 | |
| background | No | 仅 new_tab 时有效：不激活到前台（操作指针仍切换） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses notable side effects: opening a new tab, switching the operation pointer, and the return payload. It doesn't mention failure modes or timeouts beyond what the schema covers.
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?
Concise single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and then tab semantics. No redundant filler.
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 a 4-param navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains inputs, defaults, and return shape, which is nearly complete. Lacks failure handling or edge cases but sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the new_tab and pointer behavior, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 (导航/navigate) and resource (URL), and the scope (tab handling) is spelled out. An agent can immediately tell it performs page navigation as opposed to the code-execution siblings.
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?
Describes default behavior (current tab) versus new_tab=true, but doesn't reference alternative siblings like run_drission_code when programmatic navigation is needed. Clear context for the primary usage, minor gap on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.