nekoro-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_selector

Wait for a DOM element to reach a specified state (e.g., visible) within a timeout, ensuring the page is ready before proceeding.

Instructions

wait_selector(".modal", "visible", 15) — 等待元素状态

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": {
      "sel": "<sel>"
    },
    "name": "wait_selector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sel`	Yes
`tab`	No
`state`	No
`timeout`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 does not state what happens on timeout (throws vs returns), whether the tool polls or blocks, or what side effects occur. As a waiting/mutation-vs-read tool, 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short—essentially a single example line plus a Chinese phrase. It's brief, which is a virtue, but the brevity leaves critical details out. It's not bloated, but it under-delivers on substance.

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?

A 4-parameter waiting tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs more explanation. The description fails to cover state options, timeout default/units, tab behavior, and error handling. The sibling context (wait_for_load, sleep) suggests multiple wait tools exist, increasing the need for differentiation that is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'sel' and 'state' via the example ('.modal', 'visible'), but does not document 'tab' or 'timeout' at all. The example reveals some semantics for two parameters but leaves half the parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives an example call and a Chinese explanation '等待元素状态' (wait for element state). This conveys that the tool waits for a selector to reach a specified state, but it lacks a formal English purpose statement. The example partially clarifies intent but is somewhat unclear about what states are supported and what the return value is.

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 alternatives like wait_for_load or sleep. The example shows a pattern but doesn't explain scenarios where waiting on a selector state is preferred over other wait mechanisms, nor does it exclude alternatives.

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