Scrolls a browser page repeatedly until specified text or selector appears, so you can wait for lazy-loaded content before interacting or extracting data.
Scroll until text/selector appears
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. | |
| selector | No | ||
| container | No | ||
| max_iters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only the polling condition and omits critical details: timeout behavior, what happens if the target never appears, default max_iters, scrolling container semantics, and any side effects or auth requirements.
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 single short phrase is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is drastically undersized for a tool with six parameters and no annotations. Appropriate brevity would still require more actionable detail.
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 six parameters, zero required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It omits usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral expectations that an agent needs to call the tool correctly.
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 only 17% (only the 'profile' parameter is documented). The description mentions no parameters, so the agent receives no guidance for 'tab', 'text', 'selector', 'container', or 'max_iters'. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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?
States a specific verb ('Scroll') and condition ('until text/selector appears'), making the core action clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like sleeper_scroll, sleeper_wait_until, or sleeper_wait_text, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sleeper_wait_text or sleeper_scroll. No prerequisites, no context, and no exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.