Select a dropdown option using its snapshot ref to update the browser page state. Returns the refreshed snapshot for continued automation.
Select an option by snapshot ref and return the updated snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| observe | No | compact | |
| session_id | No | ||
| timeout_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one trait — that an updated snapshot is returned as a side effect — but says nothing about session requirements, what happens when the ref is stale, whether change/input events fire, or how timeout_ms affects failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the addressing key, and the result — no filler whatsoever.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter browser action with no annotations and 0% param coverage, the description is far too thin; only the output side is covered, and even that is partly redundant with the existing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description accounts for ref and loosely for value, but observe (enum with compact/full/none), session_id, and timeout_ms are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Select) and resource (option) plus the addressing mechanism (snapshot ref), which separates it from browser_click_ref and browser_set_value_ref. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the element types it applies to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as browser_set_value_ref or browser_set_form_values. The agent must infer from the name that this is for <select>/dropdown elements only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.