Unchecks a checkbox or radio control in the browser, resolving issues with stuck selections and enabling accurate form state changes.
Uncheck a checkbox or radio control.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | No | Stable page ID; defaults to the session active page | |
| target | Yes | Snapshot ref such as e12, aria-ref=e12, or a unique CSS selector | |
| sessionId | No | Optional session ID; defaults to this MCP client active session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.8.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It does not reveal side effects, requirements (e.g., element visibility), failure behavior, or whether the action is reversible. This is a complete lack of behavioral context.
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 a single concise sentence that requires no extra words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation, earning top marks for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool is a simple interaction with no output schema or annotations, the description should still offer more context about the operation's effects or limitations. It only states the action, leaving out whether it waits for actionability, modifies page state, or returns any confirmation. The context is incomplete.
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 input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the schema already covers parameter semantics. The description adds no additional insight into parameters, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.
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 'Uncheck a checkbox or radio control' clearly identifies the action and target resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `nex_browser_check`, which performs the opposite action, so it misses the full sibling differentiation criterion.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of `nex_browser_check` or any other context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.