browser_typeTypes text into the currently focused element, simulating real keyboard input. Use it to enter data into forms or fields during browser automation.
Type text into the element that currently has focus, as if the user was typing on the keyboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to type into the focused element |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and 'as if the user was typing on the keyboard' usefully signals per-character keyboard events rather than a direct value set (contrasting with fill semantics). It does not disclose what happens when no element is focused, whether existing text is cleared, or how errors surface.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the focus constraint and the keyboard-emulation behavior both do work and are stated immediately.
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?
For a one-parameter, no-annotation tool this is minimally adequate, but it omits failure modes (no focused element, non-editable target) and any note on return behavior or element state after typing, which an agent would need to sequence calls correctly.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'text' fully. The description's only added semantic is that the text goes to the focused element, which is marginal given the schema already says 'text to type into the focused element'.
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?
States a specific verb (type) and a precise target (the element that currently has focus), which implicitly separates it from sibling browser_fill, which presumably targets an element by selector. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the 'currently has focus' scoping makes the core purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'into the element that currently has focus' carries an implied prerequisite (focus must already be set) but the description never says when to choose this over browser_fill or browser_send_keys. Usage is inferable from the focus constraint rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.