Validates Playwright locators against an open session's current page after actions, without requiring a fresh navigation.
verify_locators against an open session's current page (after acting, without a fresh navigation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locators | Yes | Playwright expressions as written in the test (getByRole(...), getByTestId(...), scoped forms, .nth(i)). | |
| session_id | Yes | From session_open. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates on the current page without fresh navigation, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what verification produces, what happens on failure, or how results are reported.
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?
A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by key context. No wasted sentences. The opening term repeats the tool name, but the overall structure is efficient.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values and what 'verify' yields (e.g., pass/fail per locator, resolved elements, errors). It omits this entirely, leaving an agent unsure how to interpret results, which is a significant gap for a verification tool.
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 100%: the locators array documents Playwright expression syntax and session_id documents its source. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific action (verify_locators) and adds meaningful context (against an open session's current page, after acting, without a fresh navigation). However, it largely restates the tool name and never clarifies what 'verify' actually checks (existence, visibility, count, resolution), nor does it differentiate from the sibling tool named verify_locators.
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 parenthetical '(after acting, without a fresh navigation)' gives an implied timing condition for when this tool is appropriate, but it never names the alternative tool (e.g., verify_locators) or states explicit exclusions. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.