browser-mcp-demo

wait_for_login

Waits for a browser session to complete login by polling its authentication status, with configurable timeout and optional site-specific polling.

Instructions

Poll login status for a session (site-specific when provided).

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	Yes
`timeoutSec`	No
`site`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only states 'poll login status' without explaining whether the call blocks, times out, or returns immediately. Key behaviors like polling frequency, error handling, and status values are absent.

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 single-sentence description is highly concise and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description omits critical context: return type, blocking nature, error states, and relationship to session lifecycle. With no output schema, the agent lacks information to handle the tool's response properly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description barely explains parameters. It hints at the optional site parameter but fails to describe sessionId (required) or timeoutSec (optional). Consequently, the description adds little value over the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool polls login status for a session and notes site-specific behavior. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_session and destroy_session which handle session lifecycle, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_session or platform_search. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must exist) or when polling is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server