dawg-mcp

by dawgswarm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

browser_select_option

Select options in a dropdown element by its reference. Choose values from a select menu in a browser session.

Instructions

Select one or more options in a identified by ref.

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "browser_select_option"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`element`	Yes
`ref`	Yes
`values`	Yes
`session_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 does not disclose key behaviors such as whether it replaces or appends selections, error handling for invalid values, or any side effects. The description is too minimal.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the key action. However, it is too terse, sacrificing useful detail for brevity. It could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 the tool's complexity (browser dropdown selection) and the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., page must contain the <select>), behavior on multiple values, or return type.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions 'ref'. It does not explain the 'element' parameter (distinguishing multiple selects), 'values' (expected format), or 'session_id'. Users have to guess parameter details from names alone.

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 ('Select'), the resource ('one or more options in a <select>'), and the identifier ('by `ref`'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill_form by specifying the exact UI element type.

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 usage for selecting options in dropdowns, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, which is a gap given the many browser siblings.

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