Skip to main content
Glama

find_elements

Locates every matching element using CSS, XPath, ID, name, tag, class, link, or partial link and returns their text for automation assertions and data extraction.

Instructions

Find all matching elements and return their texts.

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": "find_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNoStrategycss
timeoutNoSeconds
selectorYesLocator value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.9.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / by / description
      Previous value: -"Locator strategy"New value: +"Strategy"
    • changedInput schema / properties / selector / description
      Previous value: -"CSS selector, XPath, or other locator value"New value: +"Locator value"
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeout / description
      Previous value: -"Wait timeout in seconds"New value: +"Seconds"
  2. First observedv0.3.7

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return content ('their texts'), but omits behavior for zero matches, whether it waits, and how the timeout parameter affects waiting.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The key action and return behavior are stated immediately.

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 three-parameter finder with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves gaps around empty results and wait/timeout semantics. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, albeit tersely. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Find'), resource ('elements', plural), and return behavior ('return their texts'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular find_element sibling. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts with find_element.

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 on when to choose this over find_element or get_text. The plural 'all matching elements' implies bulk retrieval, but the description leaves the decision entirely to inference.

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