Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pony-browser-mcp

pony-browser-mcp

by pssrh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_wait

Wait for a page element to appear using CSS or text selectors, with configurable timeout to handle dynamic content loading.

Instructions

Wait for an element to appear on the page. Supports CSS and text-based selectors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "browser_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNoMax wait time in ms (default: 10000)
selectorYesCSS selector or text selector (e.g. "text=Success", "button:text(Next)") to wait for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the primary behavior: waiting for an element to appear and supporting CSS/text selectors. However, it does not mention what happens on timeout, whether it waits for visibility vs existence, or what the return value/error behavior is.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds selector-type support without unnecessary detail. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully described schema, the description is largely adequate. Gaps remain around timeout behavior and return/error semantics, which an agent would need to know for robust invocation, but the core usage is clear.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both selector and timeout. The description only restates selector types already present in the schema and adds no additional meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('element to appear on the page'), clearly stating the tool's core action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_wait_for_network by focusing on DOM elements rather than network activity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_wait_for_network. The description implies usage ('when you need to wait for an element') but gives no exclusions or decision criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools