BrowserMCP Extended

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_type

Enters text into a specified editable element using its latest snapshot reference, with an option to submit the associated form after typing.

Instructions

Type text into editable element

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "text": "<text>",
      "submit": "<submit>"
    },
    "name": "browser_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	Yes	Exact element reference from the latest snapshot
`text`	Yes	Text to enter
`submit`	Yes	Submit the associated form after typing
`element`	Yes	Human-readable element description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether existing text is replaced, what submit=true actually does, whether the element must be focused or visible, or what happens on failure. For a 4-required-parameter browser mutation, this leaves important behavior unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though perhaps too terse for the action's behavioral nuances.

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?

The input schema is fully documented and no output schema is needed for a simple action, so basic argument completeness is covered. However, the description omits behavioral context around text replacement and form submission that an agent would need to invoke this safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents ref, text, submit, and element clearly. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Type") and resource ("editable element"), making the basic action clear. It implicitly distinguishes typing from clicking or pressing keys, but never names or contrasts with sibling tools such as browser_press_key or browser_select_option.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus browser_press_key, browser_select_option, or browser_execute_in_frame. No prerequisites are stated, such as needing a fresh element reference from browser_snapshot before typing.

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