gecko-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

submit_form

Destructive

Submit a form by providing a CSS selector or submitting the currently focused element. Automates form submission in Firefox-based browsers via gecko-mcp.

Instructions

Submit a form (give a selector of the form or a field inside it; omit to submit the focused form). Active tab unless browserId given.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "submit_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`selector`	No	CSS selector of the form or a field in it.
`browserId`	No	Target tab. Defaults to active.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral details about targeting via selector or focused form, and tab selection via browserId, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and targeting options, the second covers tab scope. Efficient and clear.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, targeting, and tab scope. It is complete for an action tool; return values are implied. The destructive nature is annotated, so no additional behavioral info needed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds the key behavior that omitting the selector submits the focused form, which is not explicitly in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it submits a form, specifies how to target the form via CSS selector or by focusing, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_form or click by focusing on the submission action.

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?

The description implies when to use (to submit a form) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide among siblings like fill_form or click.

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