@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_is_enabled

Check whether a web element is enabled using its CSS selector. Verifies interactivity to confirm the element is active for user input.

Instructions

Check if an element is enabled

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_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and gives no details about return type, error handling, or waiting behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or expected results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though extremely brief.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool is a state-checking operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean), how it behaves if the element is not found, or any prerequisites. This is significantly incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. However, it also doesn't provide any additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action (check) and the target (an element's enabled state). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_is_visible and browser_is_checked.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions for use, exclusions, or relationships to other state-checking tools.

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