Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
locator-mcp

locator-mcp

by Eswarr11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_registry

Search a registry of element locators to find matching entries by tag name, test ID, text, or confidence level.

Instructions

Search a registry by tagName, testId, text, or confidence. Returns matching entries only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scanName": "<scanName>"
    },
    "name": "search_registry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanNameYesRegistry filename without .json.
tagNameNoFilter by HTML tag name.
testIdNoFilter by data-testid (substring match).
textNoFilter by direct text (substring match).
confidenceNoFilter by locator confidence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states it returns matching entries only, but with no annotations, it lacks disclosure on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or behavior when no matches found.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence specifies action and parameters, the second clarifies return behavior. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is missing details on return format, pagination, error handling, or performance implications. It is minimally complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the filter parameters but does not add new semantics beyond the schema; the required scanName is not mentioned in description.

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 clearly states the tool searches a registry and lists the filter parameters (tagName, testId, text, confidence). It distinguishes from siblings like get_registry (full retrieval) and list_registries (listing all).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (when filtering by tag, testId, text, or confidence) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparison with alternatives like get_registry_keys or get_locator.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools