@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_check

Select a checkbox or radio button in a web browser by specifying its CSS selector. Automates form interactions for accurate selections.

Instructions

Check a checkbox or radio button

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_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	Yes	Selector for the checkbox/radio element
`sessionId`	No	Browser session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check a checkbox or radio button,' but doesn't disclose that this mutates the element's checked state, whether it triggers events, or any prerequisites. It's a state-changing operation with no transparency about side effects.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. No wasted words.

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 action tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient. However, since it's a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from mentioning return behavior, error conditions, or that it works on the current page.

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%, with both 'selector' and 'sessionId' already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description specifies the tool's action ('Check') and target ('checkbox or radio button'), which is a clear verb+resource pair. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click (generic click) and browser_uncheck (opposite action), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states the context: use for checkboxes or radio buttons. This implies it should be used over generic clicks for these element types, and the existence of browser_uncheck suggests when not to use (when unchecking). However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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