Types text into a specific form field identified by its reference, enabling automated input for browser tasks.
Type text into one observed field by its ref.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| text | 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 of explaining behavior, but it only states that text is typed. It does not disclose whether existing field content is replaced or appended, whether events fire, whether the field must be visible/focused, or what side effects occur.
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. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification.
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?
For a browser automation action, the description omits practical details an agent needs: what the tool returns, failure conditions, whether the ref comes from a prior observe call, and how typing interacts with the page state. The lack of annotations and output schema makes these omissions more significant.
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 compensate. It clarifies that 'ref' identifies the field and 'text' is what gets typed, but it doesn't explain how to obtain a valid ref, what formats are accepted for text, or any constraints such as maximum length or special characters.
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 names a specific action ('Type text') and a specific target ('one observed field by its ref'), which is clear and differentiates it from click/select/press siblings. It doesn't elaborate on what counts as an 'observed field,' but the core operation is unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus browser_press, browser_act, or browser_click, and no mention of prerequisites like obtaining a ref from browser_observe. Usage context is only implied by the action itself, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.