Wait for any specified text to appear on the selected page before proceeding, preventing errors from premature actions.
Wait for the specified text to appear on the selected page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Non-empty list of texts. Resolves when any value appears on the page. | |
| pageId | Yes | Targets a specific page by ID. | |
| timeout | No | Maximum wait time in milliseconds. If set to 0, the default timeout will be used. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavior of waiting for text appearance, but doesn't disclose details like polling behavior, what happens on timeout, or whether it resolves on any match vs all matches. The schema's text description says 'Resolves when any value appears' which covers the any-match behavior, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action. It's concise and to the point, with no wasted words. It could arguably include a bit more context, but for its length it's well-structured.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters, all documented in the schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple wait operation. However, it doesn't mention timeout behavior (e.g., what happens if text never appears) or whether the wait is for any text vs all texts, though the schema partially covers the 'any' behavior. For a tool with no output schema, a bit more context on return behavior would be helpful.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 for') and resource ('specified text' on 'selected page'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, fill, or navigate_page. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage context: use it when you need to wait for text to appear. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like wait_for vs reach (which might be a sibling for scrolling/waiting). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.