Select one or multiple options in a dropdown by visible text, value, CSS/Playwright selector, or snapshot ref to automate browser form choices.
Select option(s) in a .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Element ref from browser_snapshot, e.g. "e12" | |
| text | No | Visible text to match (alternative to ref) | |
| value | No | ||
| values | No | ||
| selector | No | CSS or Playwright selector (alternative to ref) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context: it does not mention event triggering, multi-select behavior, side effects, or what 'destructive' might mean in this 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and browser-interaction complexity. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient communication.
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?
With no output schema and only partial schema parameter coverage, the description should explain how to choose between ref, text, and selector, and what value/values do. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with insufficient context beyond the annotations and schema for a five-parameter tool.
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 60% (ref, text, and selector have descriptions; value and values do not). The description does not explain any parameter semantics or clarify how ref, text, value, values, and selector interact, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource: select option(s) in a <select>. It is clear enough to know the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like browser_click or browser_type, nor does it mention the browser-automation context.
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 such as browser_click, browser_type, or browser_evaluate. The description only restates the operation with no context about preconditions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.