Type text into input fields or textareas in a Brave browser tab, with optional clearing of existing content and CSS selector targeting for precise automation.
Type text into an input or textarea.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text string to type | |
| tab_id | Yes | The ID of the tab | |
| selector | No | CSS selector of the input element | |
| clear_first | No | Clear existing text first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool types text; it does not say whether the element first needs focus, how existing text is handled when clear_first is false, whether events fire, or what happens on failure.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple, well-schema-covered tool, though it does omit usage context that would make it more useful.
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 gives a clear core function and the schema covers parameters, but it lacks guidance on selecting between related tools and does not mention edge cases or limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of overlapping siblings, the description is minimally acceptable but not complete.
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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds no extra semantic details beyond the broad action (typing into an input or textarea), which is acceptable and meets the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 names a specific action ('Type text') and a clear target ('an input or textarea'), so an agent can immediately grasp the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'wrave_type_and_submit', but the action and target are clear enough for a 4.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wrave_type_and_submit or wrave_press_key. The intended context must be inferred from the action being typed, which is insufficient when the sibling list contains overlapping input-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.