Skip to main content
Glama

browser_wait_load

Read-onlyIdempotent

Waits until the page document reaches complete readyState, with a configurable timeout, so you can proceed only after navigation or reload finishes.

Instructions

Waits until the document is settled and complete (document.readyState === 'complete'). timeout_ms: at most 115000 (bridge limit); the response is awaited for timeout_ms + 5 s.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idYesYour tab's id (from browser_new_tab, or a tab adopted with browser_adopt_tab).
timeout_msNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.31.6
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "properties": {
      -    "result": {
      -      "title": "Result",
      -      "type": "string"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "result"
      -  ],
      -  "title": "browser_wait_loadOutput",
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description wisely spends its words on the timeout contract: a 115000 ms bridge cap and the fact that the call blocks for timeout_ms + 5 s. That latency disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations can't carry, though it omits what happens when the timeout elapses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two lines, no waste, with the core condition front-loaded and the timeout caveat immediately after. Slightly telegraphic layout, but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a successful call yields or how timeouts surface (error vs. partial result). The blocking semantics are well covered but the failure mode is left unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% – timeout_ms has no schema description – and the description compensates with a concrete upper bound (115000, bridge limit) and the effective wait duration. tab_id is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and a precise condition (waits until document.readyState === 'complete'), which operationally distinguishes it from browser_wait_network_idle and browser_wait_for without naming them. The sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Nothing says when to prefer this over browser_wait_network_idle or browser_wait_for, nor when it is unnecessary (e.g., after a tool that already blocks on load). Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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