Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
neko-browser

neko-browser

by aliksir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

neko_type

Type text into a browser element by its index from a state output, with sensitive data automatically masked.

Instructions

Type text into an element identified by index. Sensitive data is masked in the response.

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": {
      "index": "<index>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "neko_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to type
indexYesElement index from neko_get_state

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions that sensitive data is masked in the response, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain other traits like whether typing replaces existing text, triggers events, or supports special keys. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the source of the index or any special behavior. Given the lack of annotations, more context would be helpful.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about sensitive data masking but does not add meaning specific to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool types text into an element by index. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from similar siblings like neko_fill or neko_press_key. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from neko_fill, which could be ambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like neko_fill or neko_press_key. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools