safari-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_fill_form

Fills multiple Safari form fields at once using element refs, including checkboxes and radio buttons with true/false values.

Instructions

Fill several form fields at once. Checkbox and radio fields take "true" or "false".

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": {
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "browser_fill_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tabId`	No	Tab id from browser_tabs. Default: current tab.
`fields`	Yes
`backend`	No	Backend: real = your Safari, driver = isolated safaridriver session. Default: session default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about what a fill actually does at the browser level (events fired, whether the form is submitted, what happens if a ref is stale or the field is read-only), and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious encoding rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential value encoding but leaves the mutation semantics opaque. An agent cannot tell from this whether a successful fill implies submission, nor how partial failures are reported.

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?

The schema documents tabId and backend well, but `value` is left as a bare string with no description. The sentence about checkbox and radio fields accepting "true"/"false" supplies exactly that missing meaning, adding real value over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fill several form fields at once"), and the word "several" plus "at once" distinguishes it from the single-field browser_type sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by "several ... at once": reach for this when more than one field needs setting, otherwise browser_type. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a fresh snapshot ref), and no note on whether filling submits the form.

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