podium-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_for_element

Polls the UI until an element or text is visible, then proceeds; replaces blind waits with precise readiness detection.

Instructions

Polls until an element/text is visible (via the oracle ladder), or fails on timeout. Use to act the instant the UI is ready instead of a blind sleep.

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": {
      "udid": "<udid>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`udid`	Yes	Simulator UDID
`text`	No	Visible text to match (native a11y / WebView innerText)
`selector`	No	CSS selector — WebView surfaces only
`bundleId`	No	App bundle id for the Maestro fallback (native surface)
`contains`	No	Substring match for text (default false = exact full-string on native a11y). WebView innerText is always substring.
`timeoutMs`	No	Wait budget (default 10000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions polling, timeout, and failure on timeout, but lacks details on return value, side effects, or the 'oracle ladder' behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with the essential operation. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 the moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description plus detailed schema provide adequate completeness. Could add more context about surface-specific parameter usage, but overall 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra nuance about parameter selection or usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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?

The description clearly states it polls until an element/text is visible (specific verb and resource) and distinguishes from a blind sleep but does not differentiate from siblings like assert_visible.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use to act the instant the UI is ready instead of a blind sleep,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., assert_visible).

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