Pause browser automation for a specified number of seconds to allow page loading, animations, or network requests to complete before proceeding.
Wait for seconds.
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": "browser_wait"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral transparency, but it only says 'Wait for seconds.' It does not disclose whether this blocks the page, whether it returns a value, or whether it has side effects. The behavior is implied but not elaborated.
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?
The description is extremely concise with no filler. The essential information, the wait duration, is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.
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?
For a one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows to wait for the given seconds. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that wait for specific conditions, the description leaves some context gaps about exact behavior and when to prefer this over alternatives.
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?
The description repeats the parameter name 'seconds' and indicates it is the wait duration, which adds minimal semantic value. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide constraints like minimum/maximum values or behavior when the default is used.
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 clearly states the operation: wait for a specified number of seconds. It distinguishes this as a time-based wait, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser_wait_for_load or browser_wait_for_element, so it misses the top score.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use a fixed delay vs. waiting for a load event or an element. There are no alternatives, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the choice of tool to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.