Wait for a selector to appear OR a navigation URL to match a glob pattern. Provide ref (selector) OR url_pattern (glob).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| page_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_ms | No | ||
| url_pattern | No | ||
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the two wait modes but says nothing about timeout behavior, what happens on timeout expiry, or blocking semantics beyond what the schema/annotations convey.
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?
Two tightly written sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the required parameter choice. No filler and every clause earns its place.
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 5-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core branch logic but omits the default timeout behavior (10000ms only implicit in schema) and the role of page_id. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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 20% (only `in_workspace` is documented), so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that `ref` means a selector and `url_pattern` means a glob, but leaves `page_id` and `timeout_ms` unexplained, so the gap is only partially filled.
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 description states a specific verb ('Wait') plus the two exact conditions it waits on (selector appearance OR navigation URL matching a glob). This is a distinct capability within the browser_* family and an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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?
It tells the caller to provide `ref` OR `url_pattern`, which is mode selection, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., waiting before a click vs calling browser_snapshot) or any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.