@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

by softallice

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

browser_is_checked

Check whether a checkbox or radio button is selected on a web page using a CSS selector.

Instructions

Check if a checkbox/radio is checked

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_is_checked"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not disclose the return type (e.g., boolean), behavior when the element is not found, or how multiple matches are handled.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is immediately clear and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple query tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify the return value or error conditions, leaving important behavioral details unspecified. It also lacks usage context.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Selector for the checkbox/radio element' and 'Browser session ID'), so schema coverage is complete. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, yielding the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool performs a verification of checkbox/radio state, using the specific verb 'Check if' and the resource 'checkbox/radio'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_check and browser_uncheck, which modify state.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a read-only verification, nor does it contrast with browser_check/browser_uncheck or the other state-query tools like browser_is_visible.

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