Pauses browser automation until a selector, ref, or text appears, or network activity goes idle, with a configurable timeout.
Wait for a selector/ref to appear, for text to appear on the page, or for network idle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| timeout_ms | No | ||
| network_idle | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare openWorldHint, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds nothing about behavior. Critically, it doesn't say what happens on timeout (throw, return false, partial result?) or whether the default 15s applies per condition, which matters for a blocking call.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the conditions enumerated in a scannable list. No filler, but the terseness comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 4-parameter blocking tool with zero schema documentation, the description should cover timeout behavior, condition combination, and failure modes. None of that is present.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, but it only gestures at selector/text/network_idle and never explains timeout_ms. It also leaves ambiguous whether empty-string defaults mean 'not used' and whether multiple set parameters are ANDed or ORed.
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 (wait) and enumerates three distinct wait conditions: selector/ref appearance, text appearance, and network idle. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like snapshot or get_text, though the 'ref' concept isn't defined anywhere in the description.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer wait_for over alternatives such as scroll_to_load or simply retrying snapshot/get_text. It also doesn't say whether conditions can be combined or which takes precedence when multiple parameters are supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.