dawg-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_wait_for

Pause browser automation until text appears or disappears, or wait a fixed time. Then capture a snapshot of the current page state.

Instructions

Wait for text to appear, text to disappear, or a fixed time.

Provide exactly one of text, text_gone, or time_ms. Returns a fresh AI snapshot.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_wait_for"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	No
`text`	No
`text_gone`	No
`time_ms`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool waits for specified conditions and returns a fresh AI snapshot. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior or what happens if no condition is provided or if the condition never occurs, which are relevant behavioral traits.

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?

The description is extremely concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states general purpose, the second gives usage rules, and the third states return value. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description explains the key parameters and usage constraint. It mentions the return type (fresh AI snapshot). It lacks details on timeout or error behavior, but for a simple wait action, this is largely sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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 explains that `text` means wait for text to appear, `text_gone` for it to disappear, and `time_ms` for a fixed time. It also clarifies only one should be provided. The `session_id` parameter is not explained but is likely common across tools. This provides significant added meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool waits for one of three conditions: text to appear, text to disappear, or a fixed time. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling browser actions like click or navigate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Provide exactly one of `text`, `text_gone`, or `time_ms`.' This gives clear usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use the tool, but the instruction on mutual exclusivity is strong.

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