Type text into a focused element or locate an element by CSS or test ID and type into it, with optional Enter key to submit forms or trigger actions.
Type text into a focused element or find an element and type into it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to type | |
| findBy | No | How to find the element | |
| selector | No | Optional: CSS selector to find the element first | |
| pressEnter | No | Press Enter after typing |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether typing appends to or replaces existing content, that it fires input/keydown events, what happens when no element is found, or whether focus is required — all important for a browser mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation-style browser tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic mechanics but omits error/failure behavior, content replacement semantics, and relationship to adjacent keyboard tools, leaving gaps an agent may need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (text, findBy, selector, pressEnter). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (type) and resource (text) and names the element target, which is clear. It is distinguishable from rnw_press_key by virtue of being text entry, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The two modes (type into focused element, or find an element first) imply usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as rnw_press_key or rnw_click for selecting the field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.