Find page elements by text or label and return their references and pixel coordinates, including elements outside the current viewport.
Busca elementos por texto/etiqueta y devuelve sus refs y coordenadas, incluso fuera del viewport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that matches can be returned even outside the viewport and that results include refs and coordinates, but it omits whether this is a pure read operation, permission requirements, result limits, and error behavior.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though the compactness contributes to missing parameter and usage details.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives useful return-value context (refs and coordinates) and viewport behavior. However, it leaves the 'max' parameter unexplained and gives no sibling routing guidance, so it is only minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely explains that 'query' is text/label based, but does not clarify matching semantics or explain the 'max' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('elementos por texto/etiqueta') and says what it returns (refs and coordinates). It does not name or contrast with siblings like browser_snapshot or browser_element_at, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_snapshot, browser_element_at, or browser_read. The only implied usage is finding elements by text/label, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.