Inserts text into input, textarea, or contenteditable elements, with optional delays for realistic character-by-character entry during browser automation.
Type text into an input/textarea/contenteditable (optionally char-by-char)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| delay | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| delay_per_char | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior and the optional char-by-char mode, but it does not mention side effects like clearing existing content, event firing, or whether the element must already be focused. This is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, and the optional char-by-char detail is included without adding noise.
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?
With six parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to enable fully correct invocation. It leaves unanswered questions about element targeting, timing semantics, and interaction with page state.
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%, and the description only adds meaning for 'text' via 'Type text'. The targeting parameters (ref, selector, scope), timing parameter (delay), and per-character delay are not semantically explained, so an agent would struggle to choose the right parameters confidently.
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 uses a specific verb ('Type text') and names the target element types (input/textarea/contenteditable), making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, but the distinction from press_key, click, and hover is evident from the wording.
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: whenever text needs to be entered into an editable element. However, it provides no explicit guidance about prerequisites such as focusing the element, nor does it mention when to prefer alternatives like press_key or execute_js.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.