Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

by softallice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_wait_for_navigation

Block until the browser finishes navigation, with a configurable timeout to handle slow pages and avoid premature actions.

Instructions

Wait for navigation to complete

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_wait_for_navigation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNoMaximum wait time in milliseconds
sessionIdNoBrowser session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the wait action. It does not explain timeout behavior, error handling, return values, or whether navigation completion is based on network idle or load events. This is a significant gap for a wait operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could earn a higher score if it included key usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description is too minimal given the absence of annotations and output schema. It lacks context about when to use it, what happens on timeout, and how it relates to navigation actions. More detail is needed for an agent to use it successfully.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (timeout and sessionId), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; 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 clearly states a specific action ('Wait for navigation') with a resource ('navigation'), and the name distinguishes it from related tools like browser_wait_for_selector. However, it does not explicitly clarify what 'complete' means (e.g., load event, network idle), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after browser_navigate or instead of browser_wait_for_selector. The description gives no context about typical usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools