Select an option in a dropdown, radio group, or checkbox by matching label text or value, enabling automated form filling in job application workflows.
Select an option in a dropdown, radio group, or checkbox. Tries matching by label text first, then by value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Option label or value to select | |
| selector | Yes | CSS selector for the select/radio/checkbox element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the matching strategy (label text first, then value), which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about failure behavior when no match is found, whether visibility/state is checked, or whether multi-select is supported.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the matching rule stated second. No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter browser-automation tool: the action and matching behavior are covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits error/not-found handling and verification behavior, leaving gaps an agent would need.
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 100%, with both parameters documented (value = label or value, selector = CSS selector). The description adds the matching-order semantics but no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (an option in a dropdown/radio group/checkbox), and specifies the element types handled. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fill_form_field or click_element, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The mention of dropdown/radio/checkbox implies a form-interaction context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no naming of the alternative tools (fill_form_field for text inputs, click_element for generic clicks). Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.