Wait for text to appear, disappear, or a set time to pass, ensuring page conditions are met before continuing.
Wait for text to appear, text to disappear, or a fixed number of seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Wait until this text appears on the page. | |
| time | No | Wait for this many seconds. | |
| textGone | No | Wait until this text is no longer on the page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core wait behavior and the three termination conditions, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens on failure, whether the options are mutually exclusive, or what a no-argument call does.
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, tightly packed sentence with no filler or repetition. The main behavior is front-loaded and every clause adds useful information about a distinct wait mode.
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?
The tool is low-complexity and the primary behavior is described, but important contextual details are missing: timeout/error behavior, interaction between the optional parameters, and the effect of calling with no arguments. Since there are no annotations or output schema, these gaps are meaningful for an agent deciding how to call the tool.
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?
The input schema already fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level detail. It merely rephrases the schema's semantics in natural language, which keeps it at the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 clearly identifies the operation: waiting on the browser page state. It enumerates the three supported conditions (text appears, text disappears, or a fixed delay), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling browser tools, none of which are wait operations.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the three modes imply the usage context: wait for text with text, wait for text removal with textGone, and wait for a fixed duration with time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.