Skip to main content
Glama

assert

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify page conditions by polling until timeout: element visibility, presence, count, text, or URL/title patterns. Supports regex and substring matching for automated testing.

Instructions

Assert a page condition, polling until timeout: element exists/visible (optionally with count or containing text), text on page, tab url/title. Patterns: substring, or "/…/" for regex. Recorded flows replay it as a test.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoTab url pattern
textNoIn the element (with selector) or anywhere on the page
countNoExact match count for selector
stateNoattached means present in the DOM, visible also requires a rendered boxattached
titleNoTab title pattern
tab_idNoTarget tab; omitted = last tab navigated in this session, else the active one
timeoutNoMax ms to wait for the condition before failing
selectorNoElement the assertion is about; ">>>" pierces shadow DOM
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context about polling timeout and pattern syntax, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core functionality and pattern syntax are conveyed efficiently.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main conditions, patterns, and replay context. It lacks explicit return behavior but is otherwise sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only summarizing condition types and pattern styles. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to assert page conditions (element existence/visibility, text, URL/title) with polling until timeout. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on assertion rather than observation or waiting.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for assertions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_for or query_dom. No exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/frsorrentino/chrome-bridge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server