SeleniumMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_text

Retrieve the visible text of a web element by providing a locator strategy (e.g., CSS selector, XPath) and value. Optionally set a timeout for dynamic content.

Instructions

Return the visible text for an element.

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": {
      "strategy": "<strategy>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "get_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`strategy`	Yes
`value`	Yes
`timeout_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention that it may fail if element is not found, that it returns only visible text (not inner HTML), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with the DOM.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits critical information. It earns points for conciseness but loses for being incomplete.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (though not visible here), the description fails to provide enough context. It doesn't explain what the returned text looks like, edge cases (empty element, non-existent element), or the effect of timeout_seconds.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 3 parameters (strategy, value, timeout_seconds) with no descriptions in schema (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. For example, it doesn't explain the strategy enum options or the role of timeout_seconds.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'visible text' for an element. It distinguishes from siblings like get_attribute (returns attribute) and page_source (returns entire page HTML).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_attribute or capturing element text via other means. No exclusions or context provided.

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