Choose one or multiple options in a browser dropdown, using a ref, CSS selector, or tab target, with optional force and timeout controls.
Choose option(s) in a .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ref from snapshot, e.g. e3 | |
| tab | No | tab id, defaults to current | |
| force | No | ||
| value | Yes | string, or array of strings for multi-select | |
| timeout | No | ||
| selector | No | CSS selector | |
| request_timeout | No | Outer page request deadline in milliseconds; defaults to at least 30000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says only that options are chosen, without disclosing side effects, event firing, visibility requirements, force behavior, timeouts, or whether the element needs a ref. This is minimal transparency for a mutation-style browser action.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves important context to other dimensions rather than providing structured guidance.
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?
With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how to target the element via ref or selector, what force does, timeout behavior, and expected side effects, leaving an agent with significant gaps.
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 coverage is moderate at 71%, with descriptions for ref, tab, value, selector, and request_timeout. The tool description adds nothing beyond echoing 'option(s)', and it does not clarify force, timeout, or the choice between ref and selector. The schema does most of the work.
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?
The description gives a clear verb and target: choose option(s) in a <select>. This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like click, fill, or check, 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention selecting between ref and selector, when to use force, or how it differs from click/fill/check. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in a <select>'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.