Chrome Course MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chrome_type

Type text into input fields and textareas on web pages using CSS selectors, labels, placeholders, names, IDs, or aria-labels. Automates form entry for course materials.

Instructions

Type into an input or textarea by CSS selector, label text, placeholder, name, id, or aria-label.

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": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "chrome_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`clear`	No
`label`	No
`tabId`	No
`value`	Yes
`submit`	No
`waitMs`	No
`debugUrl`	No	http://127.0.0.1:9222
`selector`	No
`urlContains`	No
`titleContains`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action but does not mention side effects such as clearing the field by default (clear), submitting (submit), or waiting (waitMs), nor any failure or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple purpose statement, though it lacks depth in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, behavior of key parameters, or edge cases, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 partially explains the 'selector' and 'label' parameters by mentioning locator strategies, but leaves critical parameters like 'value', 'clear', 'submit', 'waitMs', 'tabId', 'urlContains', 'titleContains', and 'debugUrl' completely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Type into an input or textarea' and lists specific locator strategies (CSS selector, label text, etc.), making the verb and resource explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as chrome_click or chrome_press by naming alternatives or contrasting use cases.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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