Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Web Wait For

web_wait_for

Waits (polls, not a fixed sleep) until an element appears on the page, or times out. Use for SPA pages that hydrate after load. Prefer selector (a CSS selector, e.g. "input[name=password]"). condition also accepts the form "document.querySelector('...')"; any OTHER JavaScript condition runs arbitrary code on the page (same power as web_eval) and is disabled when LMCP is in read-only mode. Returns met:true/false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionNoSession name (default 'default').
selectorNoCSS selector to wait for (preferred; treated as data, never executed). e.g. .feed
conditionNoAlternative to selector: "document.querySelector('...')" is accepted as-is; any other JS expression runs arbitrary code on the page (same power as web_eval).
timeout_secondsNoMax seconds to wait (default 15).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
metNoTrue if the condition became truthy before the timeout.
messageNoPresent when the condition was not met.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral facts: the wait is implemented as polling rather than a fixed sleep, selector input is treated as data and never executed, condition can run arbitrary JavaScript with the same power as web_eval, and condition execution is disabled in read-only mode. These details materially affect how an agent uses the tool safely.

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?

The description is three sentences with every sentence earning its place: the primary behavior is front-loaded, then the primary use case and parameter preference, then the critical safety/deployment constraint. No filler or redundant restating of parameter names.

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

Completeness5/5

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

It covers the core operation, the exact usage context, the difference between the two waiting modes, a security-critical caveat about arbitrary code, and the return shape. The tool has an output schema that already describes met:true/false, so the description does not need to re-explain the return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers all four parameters in detail, but the description adds extra meaning: it explicitly 'prefers' selector for safety, explains the two distinct forms of condition, and reveals that condition is disabled in read-only mode — something not present in the schema description. This helps agents choose between the parameters correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation — waits (polls) for an element to appear on the page — with an explicit timeout, and clarifies it is not a fixed sleep. It references the SPA hydration use case, making it clear this is a web-page readiness check, distinct from sibling tools like web_find or web_extract.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a clear context signal: 'Use for SPA pages that hydrate after load' and provides a recommended parameter preference ('Prefer selector'). It does not explicitly distinguish from the similar ui_wait_for_element sibling, but the web-page scope is evident and no alternatives are mentioned.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources