SeleniumMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_for_element

Wait for a web element to exist or become visible by specifying a locator strategy, value, timeout, and visibility requirement. Ensures element is ready for interaction.

Instructions

Wait until an element exists, or until it is visible when requested.

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": "wait_for_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes the core behavior (waiting for existence or visibility), but does not disclose timeout behavior (error vs return), nor the impact on the element or page state. With no annotations, more details would be beneficial.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence), but lacks structure and depth. While not verbose, it is too terse to fully convey the tool's behavior and usage.

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 complexity of 4 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, timeout handling, or how to combine parameters effectively. Siblings like find_element indicate need for clearer differentiation.

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?

Description adds no value beyond the input schema. It does not explain the strategy, value, timeout, or visible parameters. The schema provides defaults and enums, but the description offers no additional context.

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?

Description clearly indicates the tool waits for an element to exist or become visible, with explicit mention of the waiting behavior and visibility option. However, it lacks specificity about the return value and does not differentiate strongly from siblings like find_element.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as find_element or click. The phrase 'when requested' is vague, and there is no mention of scenarios where waiting is preferred.

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