Waits until specified text appears on a browser page before continuing. Use it to synchronize automation with dynamic content and avoid acting on pages that haven't loaded.
Wait for text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| exact | No | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. | |
| timeout_ms | 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, and it discloses nothing. It does not explain blocking behavior, what happens on timeout, default timeout semantics, or whether it polls versus waits for a single event.
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?
At three words the description is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded context, actionable detail, or structure to guide invocation.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent lacks the timeout defaults, exact-vs-substring matching behavior, and tab/profile targeting needed to call it 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?
With 5 parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds zero meaning. Key parameters like tab, exact, and timeout_ms are entirely unexplained, and the relationship between 'text' and 'exact' is left ambiguous.
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 'Wait for text' essentially restates the tool name sleeper_wait_text, providing a verb and resource but no additional detail. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like sleeper_wait_until, sleeper_wait, or sleeper_find_text, so an agent cannot tell what makes this specific wait tool unique.
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 the many other wait/find siblings (sleeper_wait, sleeper_wait_until, sleeper_wait_url, sleeper_find_text). No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.