Mithwire MCP

browser_query

Find and inspect DOM elements by CSS selector within a browser session to locate page content for automation, testing, or debugging.

Instructions

Query DOM elements by CSS selector.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "browser_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`selector`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 behavioral burden and does not meet it. It doesn't say whether the query waits for elements, what happens when the selector matches nothing, whether returned handles are reusable by browser_click/browser_type, or whether it is a safe read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, so it is structurally fine. However it is minimal to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely 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?

An output schema exists so return format needn't be explained, but for a three-parameter, annotation-free browser tool the description leaves key gaps: pagination/limit behavior, session binding, and how results relate to other browser_* interaction tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only implies the selector parameter. Neither 'limit' (default 40) nor 'session_id' receives any explanation, and the return-handle semantics tied to the selector are unstated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query DOM elements') plus the input mechanism ('by CSS selector'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like browser_snapshot, browser_html, or browser_wait_for_selector, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many overlapping DOM-inspection siblings. An agent must guess whether this replaces browser_snapshot/browser_html or complements them.

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

Deploy Server