Mithwire MCP

browser_wait

Pause a Mithwire MCP browser session for a specified number of seconds to control timing between automation steps.

Instructions

Wait for a number of seconds.

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>"
    },
    "name": "browser_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seconds`	No
`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

C2.4/5.0

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. It conveys only that a blocking delay occurs and says nothing about blocking semantics, session requirements, or whether the wait is an unconditional sleep rather than a condition poll.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, which is structurally fine. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise: one sentence is simply too little to disambiguate this tool from its wait-family siblings.

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 values need not be explained. Everything else is missing, though: no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, an undocumented required session_id, and no routing against the conditional wait tools, making the definition inadequate for correct tool selection.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at the 'seconds' parameter via 'a number of seconds' and omits the default (1.2), the unit/rounding behavior, and any mention of the required session_id, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb 'Wait' plus the notion of a duration gives a minimally clear purpose, and the name implies a browser-context pause. But the description never distinguishes this fixed-duration sleep from the large sibling family of conditional waits (browser_wait_for_selector, browser_wait_for_url, browser_wait_for_text, browser_wait_for_function, browser_wait_for_network_idle), leaving the agent to guess which wait tool applies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many browser_wait_for_* siblings, nor any stated prerequisite such as an active session. The agent must infer everything about selection from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server