Type text into an Android input field by resource ID, text, or index, or into the focused field, with optional clearing first.
Type text into an input field found by selector, or into whatever field currently has focus when no selector is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| resource_id | No | ||
| target_text | No | ||
| text_contains | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the basic action but does not disclose edge-case behaviors such as what happens if no field is found, whether it replaces existing text (though the 'clear' parameter suggests this), or if it triggers events. It's minimally adequate for a straightforward 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and provides a clear fallback. It has no unnecessary words and earns its place.
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?
The tool has six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain how selectors are specified, what the parameters do, or what the output represents. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'selector' without mapping it to any of the actual parameter names (resource_id, target_text, etc.), and it gives no explanation of content, clear, index, or text_contains. This is a severe gap for a tool with six parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the action (type text) and the target (input field), and it distinguishes between two modes: by selector or by current focus. This makes it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and differentiate it from sibling tools like tap or swipe.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when typing text into a field) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It notes that without a selector it uses the focused field, which is some guidance, but it doesn't compare to related tools like clear_text or press_key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.