Skip to main content
Glama
Rainmen-xia

Chrome Debug MCP Server

by Rainmen-xia

type_text

Enter text into web forms and input fields during browser automation sessions. This tool simulates keyboard input for automated testing and interaction with web applications.

Instructions

输入文本内容

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes要输入的文本内容

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler implementation that performs the text typing using Puppeteer's page.keyboard.type(), wrapped in doAction for error handling, logging, and screenshot capture.
    async type(text: string): Promise<BrowserActionResult> {
    	return this.doAction(async (page) => {
    		await page.keyboard.type(text);
    	});
    }
  • Tool dispatcher in CallToolRequestSchema handler that validates input and delegates to browserSession.type().
    case "type_text":
    	if (!args?.text) {
    		throw new Error("text参数是必需的");
    	}
    	result = await this.browserSession.type(args.text as string);
    	break;
  • src/index.ts:96-109 (registration)
    Tool registration including name, description, and input schema in the ListToolsRequestSchema response.
    {
    	name: "type_text",
    	description: "输入文本内容",
    	inputSchema: {
    		type: "object",
    		properties: {
    			text: {
    				type: "string",
    				description: "要输入的文本内容",
    			},
    		},
    		required: ["text"],
    	},
    },
  • Input schema definition for the type_text tool.
    	inputSchema: {
    		type: "object",
    		properties: {
    			text: {
    				type: "string",
    				description: "要输入的文本内容",
    			},
    		},
    		required: ["text"],
    	},
    },
  • Helper function generating success message for type_text tool.
    case "type_text":
    	return "✅ 文本输入完成";
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this tool requires a browser session to be active, what happens if the target element isn't focused, whether it simulates keystrokes or pastes text, or any error conditions. For a browser automation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise - just three Chinese characters. While this represents severe under-specification in terms of content, from a pure conciseness perspective, it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every character directly relates to the tool's function.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a browser automation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest complex interaction scenarios, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behavioral characteristics it has, or what results to expect. This fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool selection.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' clearly documented in the schema as '要输入的文本内容' (text content to input). The description '输入文本内容' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '输入文本内容' (input text content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'type_text' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what resource the text is being typed into or provide any meaningful context about the action. While it's clear this involves typing text, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar text-input operations.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (click, hover, navigate_to, etc.) that might be used in browser automation scenarios, but the description offers no context about whether this tool types into form fields, search boxes, or other UI elements, or what prerequisites might be needed.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Rainmen-xia/chrome-debug-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server