Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Browser Bridge MCP

Browser Bridge MCP

by adbarc92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_wait_for

Wait for a specific element to appear on a web page using a CSS selector. Helps synchronize browser actions with page loading.

Instructions

Wait for an element matching a CSS selector to appear on the page

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "browser_wait_for"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabIdNoTab ID (defaults to active tab)
timeoutNoTimeout in milliseconds (default: 30000)
selectorYesCSS selector to wait for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It states 'wait for an element...to appear' but omits critical details: what happens on timeout, whether it blocks until presence, return value, or error handling.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words. Purpose is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior (timeout, blocking) and usage context (e.g., for page load). It falls short for a wait-based tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are sufficient. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action ('wait for') and the target ('an element matching a CSS selector'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate by specifying the waiting behavior.

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 (e.g., polling with browser_evaluate). No mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools