Fill multiple web form fields in one call and get an updated snapshot. Supports textboxes, checkboxes, radio buttons, comboboxes, and sliders.
Fill multiple form fields (textbox/checkbox/radio/combobox/slider) in a single call, then return one snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | The fields to fill, applied in order in a single call. |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior beyond the schema: the tool returns one snapshot after filling. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, page changes, or whether field filling can trigger navigation or dialogs, so the behavior 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, scope, field types, batching behavior, and result with no filler. Every clause 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 schema is rich and fully documents the nested fields, while the description covers the core invocation context and explicitly states the return behavior (one snapshot). The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling guidance and annotation-style safety/behavior notes, but the essential operational information is present.
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?
The schema describes all parameters and their value semantics in detail, including type-specific behavior for checkbox, radio, combobox, and slider. The description adds no parameter-level value beyond restating the supported field kinds, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.
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 states a specific action ('Fill multiple form fields'), lists the supported field kinds, and mentions the single-call behavior with one snapshot returned. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like browser_type and browser_select_option by the 'multiple' and 'single call' phrasing, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 multiple form fields need to be filled together in one call. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or when to prefer siblings like browser_type or browser_select_option, leaving the routing decision mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.