usable-browser-agent-free

browser_select

Select an option from a dropdown by matching its visible label or value, using the provided reference to specify the choice.

Instructions

Choose an option in a dropdown by visible label or value.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "browser_select"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the selection mechanism ('by visible label or value') but omits side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or what happens if the option isn't found. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and value semantics, but 'ref' remains undefined and return behavior (success/failure) is not mentioned. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds meaning to the 'value' parameter by clarifying it can be a visible label or a value, which is not in the schema (coverage 0%). However, 'ref' is left unexplained—likely a reference to the select element—so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Choose'), a clear resource ('an option in a <select> dropdown'), and the method ('by visible label or value'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type, which handle general clicking or typing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used for dropdown selections, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., browser_fill_form, browser_click). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving some inference required.

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

Deploy Server