Wait for a CSS selector to appear in a Safari tab, with timeout. Use after clicks or navigation to handle async-loaded content; returns found=False on timeout.
Poll a Safari tab until a CSS selector matches an element, or time out. Useful after a click/navigation that loads content asynchronously. Returns found=False (not an error) on timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| window | No | ||
| selector | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the timeout behavior explicitly: 'Returns found=False (not an error) on timeout.' This clarifies that a timeout is not an error and the return value is a boolean. It also implies polling behavior but does not mention other potential failures (e.g., invalid selector) or whether the operation is read-only. Still, the main behavioral trait is well-covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the timeout behavior. There is no wasted wording; each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose, a use case, and the timeout return value. However, it does not describe the success return (implied true), explain the tab/window parameters, or mention error scenarios like invalid selectors. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these gaps leave the tool only adequately specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly identifies 'selector' as a CSS selector ('a CSS selector matches') and hints at a timeout, but it does not explicitly name or explain 'tab', 'window', or 'timeout_seconds'. The optional tab/window parameters are left completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool with 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Poll a Safari tab until a CSS selector matches an element, or time out.' It specifies the resource (Safari tab) and the condition (CSS selector match). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on waiting/polling, and explicitly mentions the typical use case after click/navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context: 'Useful after a click/navigation that loads content asynchronously.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives like safari_element_exists or state when not to use it. It gives a clear scenario but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.