Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenCU

OpenCU

by Daily-AC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

type_text

Enter Unicode text into the observed app, verify the resulting value, and receive updated accessibility state; use paste for multiline content since newlines may submit forms.

Instructions

Type Unicode text into the observed app. Newlines may submit forms; use paste for multiline content. Verify the resulting value. Returns the updated accessibility state after the action; a separate text-only get_app_state is normally unnecessary. Request a new screenshot before later coordinate input.

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": {
      "app": "<app>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "type_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYesApp name or full app path; macOS bundle ID; macOS and Windows pid:<pid>; Windows process name, window title fragment, or Start-menu shortcut name; Linux desktop entry name, executable name or window title fragment
textYes
scopeNomacOS and Windows: element index from the latest returned state. Read only its retained subtree, renumbered from [1], including after actions. If it disappears, return the whole window with a notice. Linux returns INVALID_ARGUMENT.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: newlines may submit forms (an unintended side effect), the return value is the updated accessibility state, and a follow-up get_app_state is normally unnecessary. It does not cover failure modes or focus requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, exception, verification, follow-up state), with the core action front-loaded and zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating input tool with no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value and the follow-up workflow, which is exactly the gap the schema leaves. It omits where text goes when 'scope' is unset and what happens on failure, leaving a small but real gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, with 'app' and 'scope' already documented in the schema and 'text' undocumented there; the description partly compensates by noting text is Unicode and that embedded newlines trigger submission. That is useful but marginal, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schema is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Type Unicode text into the observed app.' It also names the sibling it is not (paste, for multiline content), so an agent can distinguish type_text from paste without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing advice ('use paste for multiline content') and sequencing guidance ('verify the resulting value', 'request a new screenshot before later coordinate input'). It stops short of stating when-not to use type_text versus set_value or press_key, which would have made it a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools