gecko-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_for_element

Read-only

Pause execution until a specified element reaches a given state like visible or hidden. Useful after navigation or dynamic content loading.

Instructions

Wait for an element to reach a state (attached / visible / hidden / detached). Useful after navigation or actions that load content.

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`selector`	Yes	CSS selector to wait for.
`state`	No	State to wait for. Default: visible.
`timeoutMs`	No	Timeout in milliseconds. Default: 5000.
`browserId`	No	Target tab (from list_tabs). Defaults to active.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which already indicate the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details about waiting for specific states (attached, visible, hidden, detached) without contradicting annotations.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and the second provides usage context. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, the states it can wait for, and a typical use case (after navigation/actions). There is no output schema, so return values are not expected. The description is sufficiently complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Wait for an element to reach a state' and lists the possible states (attached, visible, hidden, detached). This clearly defines the verb (wait) and resource (element), and distinguishes from sibling tools like wait_for_network_idle or click.

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 says 'Useful after navigation or actions that load content,' providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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