Skip to main content
Glama
KitchenSink4AI

KitchenSink4Web

Official

wait_for

Wait for a condition on a web page, such as text, element state, URL match, or JavaScript predicate. Checks the current state first and returns immediately if already satisfied.

Instructions

Wait for text to appear or disappear, an element to reach a state, a URL to match, or a JS predicate to hold. EVERY condition is checked against the current state first and returns immediately when it already holds, so a wait issued after the thing already happened costs nothing instead of timing out (the field's URL wait expired on a navigation that had finished before the call). A url value without wildcards matches as a substring; use * and ? for globbing. Real timeouts, and a failure that says what was awaited and what was observed instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYes
valueNo
locationNo
conditionYes
timeout_msNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key runtime behaviors: immediate success on already-satisfied conditions, wildcard handling for URLs, real timeout behavior, and failure message content. This goes well beyond the minimal readOnlyHint annotation and sets accurate expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and includes useful information, but the parenthetical aside about URL wait expiration is awkward and reduces clarity. It is a single unstructured paragraph rather than a clean purpose-plus-behavior format.

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?

Given the input schema has five parameters and no property descriptions, the description is not sufficient to fully understand expected values or return behavior. Allowed condition values, the shape of `location`, and how `page` is used are left unspecified.

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 property descriptions are absent, and the description only partially clarifies parameters. It mentions URL wildcard behavior for `value` and implies `timeout_ms`, but `page`, `location`, and `condition` semantics are not explicitly defined, leaving significant ambiguity.

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's purpose: waiting for text, element states, URL matches, or JS predicates. It distinguishes wait_for from siblings like navigate and find_elements by focusing on conditional waiting.

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 explains when to use the tool and important behavioral nuances, such as immediate return if the condition already holds and URL substring/glob matching. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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