Ghosthand

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_for

Pause execution until an element appears, becomes visible, or displays specific text, with configurable timeout, to handle dynamic page content during browser automation.

Instructions

Wait until an element [ref] appears or some visible text is present (or specific condition), up to timeoutMs (default 10000). Supports condition: 'exists' | 'visible' | 'text'. Use in testing and automation flows for resilience on dynamic sites.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wait_for"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`text`	No
`condition`	No
`timeoutMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.9Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses supported conditions and default timeout, but does not explain behavior on timeout (e.g., error or return value), whether the function blocks, or its return type. This leaves some uncertainty for an AI agent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and conditions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete: it covers the main conditions and use case. However, missing details on return value, error handling, and parameter interactions leave gaps for accurate usage.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description explains 'ref' (element), 'condition', and 'timeoutMs' but not 'text' explicitly. It does not clarify the relationship between 'ref' and 'text' (mutually exclusive or combinable), nor what happens if both are provided. This ambiguity hinders correct invocation.

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 waits for an element or text condition, with specific verb 'Wait' and resources (element, text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like click, find, etc., by focusing on waiting for conditions rather than performing actions.

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?

The description states 'Use in testing and automation flows for resilience on dynamic sites,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives among the listed sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server