Pause browser automation until a specific page element appears or reaches a desired state before continuing. Pass a selector, optional state, and timeout to synchronize scripts.
Wait for element (alias)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| selector | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about blocking behavior, timeout handling, failure modes, or what states are supported. This is a severe gap for a waiting tool with no other structured behavioral hints.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with three parameters and no other documentation, this brevity leaves critical call information missing.
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?
Given the complexity (three parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It omits parameter meanings, waiting conditions, and any behavioral details needed for correct invocation.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (selector, state, timeout). The required 'selector' and optional 'state'/'timeout' are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 verb ('wait') and a resource ('element'), and the '(alias)' parenthetical indicates it duplicates the 'wait' sibling. However, it does not clarify what condition the element is waited for (visible, attached, etc.), leaving the purpose only partially distinguished from related tools like 'wait_for_text'.
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 '(alias)' hint implies the tool is interchangeable with 'wait', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'wait' or 'wait_for_text'. No context or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.