Mithwire MCP

browser_wait_for_url

Wait for the browser URL to match a substring or regex before continuing automation, so scripts proceed only after the expected page loads.

Instructions

Wait for URL substring or regex match.

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_for_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url_regex`	No
`session_id`	Yes
`url_contains`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No
`poll_interval_seconds`	No

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, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the one-liner: it doesn't state that the call blocks/polls, what happens on timeout (return vs. throw), or that url_contains and url_regex are alternative match modes. For a long-running wait primitive this is a significant gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise given the tool's complexity. The brevity is not excessive wording but excessive omission.

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 needn't be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and five parameters, the description leaves critical blocking/timeout/match-mode semantics undefined—not complete enough for an agent to call this reliably.

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% across 5 parameters. The phrase 'substring or regex match' loosely maps to url_contains and url_regex, but session_id, timeout_seconds, and poll_interval_seconds are given no meaning beyond their names, and the mutual-exclusivity/alternative behavior of the two matchers is 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+resource ('Wait for URL') with the acceptance criteria ('substring or regex match'), which distinguishes it from browser_wait_for_selector, browser_wait_for_text, and browser_wait_for_function among its siblings. It's clear but does not name or route against those siblings explicitly.

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: nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to browser_wait_for_selector or browser_wait_for_network_idle, nor when to choose url_contains vs url_regex. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server