Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BrowserPilot

BrowserPilot

by soulxyz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

browser_select_option

Choose one or more options in a dropdown select element by providing its reference and option values that match value, text, or label. Enables accurate selection for web automation and form filling.

Instructions

Select option(s) in dropdown

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "browser_select_option"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesSelect element reference
valuesYesOption values to select (can match value, text, or label)
elementYesSelect element description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action without detailing behavior such as handling of multi-select, whether previous selections are cleared, or whether the dropdown must be visible/interactive. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and front-loads the verb and object.

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?

The tool is simple and all three parameters are described in the schema. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps around when to use it and what observable effects to expect, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents what each parameter means. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Select') and resource ('dropdown'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative browser interaction tools like browser_click, browser_type, or browser_fill_form. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description rather than stated.

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