Select one or more values from a dropdown element using a CSS selector, enabling automated testing of Electron application forms and inputs.
Select option(s) from a dropdown
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Value or label to select | |
| selector | Yes | CSS selector for select element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 says nothing about whether change events are fired, whether multi-select is supported (the '(s)' hints at it but is not explained), what happens if the value is absent, or whether the dropdown must already be open. For a DOM-mutating interaction tool this is a substantial gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a tool interacting with form controls.
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 is structurally simple (2 fully documented required params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the schema covers the invocation surface adequately. Still, the description omits behavioral detail about event firing, multi-select, and error cases that an agent would want when automating form interaction.
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%, with both selector ('CSS selector for select element') and value ('Value or label to select') documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics (e.g., value vs. visible label precedence) beyond what the schema already states, 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 states a specific verb (Select) and resource (option(s) from a dropdown), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling interaction tools such as fill, click, or type, leaving the agent to infer that this one is specifically for <select> elements.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fill or click, nor any prerequisite such as the element having to be a native select or the dropdown being open. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.