Skip to main content
Glama
brunoboto96

SceneScout

by brunoboto96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scout_type

Type into a web input by element ref, appending to existing content or clearing with replace=true to correct entries. Supports boundary values (empty, long, unicode, script tags) for fuzz testing.

Instructions

Type into a text input/textarea/composer by ref, the way a real user does: if the field already holds content (e.g. an @-mention chip a menu click inserted), the text is APPENDED at the end — preserving that content — and the result reports what was already there (a separating space is added only at a word-to-word boundary). Pass replace=true to clear the field first (correcting a previous entry); an empty textValue always clears. Appending fires input events but not keydown, so keydown-driven triggers (slash/mention menus) will not react to appended text. Use for both valid values and boundary/fuzz values (empty, very long, unicode, script tags).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesElement ref, e.g. e12
taskNoWhat you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. "Filtering the documents register by status", "Filling the deviation form with invalid dates", "Signing in as QA_Team" — NOT "§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine ("§2.4: filtering the documents register"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.
valueNoAlias for `textValue`.
replaceNoClear the field before typing instead of appending to existing content
sessionNoTarget this session directly instead of the active one — pass it explicitly when dispatching to MULTIPLE sessions in one turn (e.g. two scout_click calls with different `session`), which then run CONCURRENTLY rather than queueing. Omit for single-session sequential use.
objectiveNoOld name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.
textValueNoText to type
pressEnterNoPress Enter after typing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / objective
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Old name for `task` (2.0). Prefer `task`.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / task
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "What you are DOING right now, in a few words: the action, not the acceptance criteria. \"Filtering the documents register by status\", \"Filling the deviation form with invalid dates\", \"Signing in as QA_Team\" — NOT \"§2.4 filtering narrows the set and the filter is reflected in the URL\", which is what you are CHECKING, not what you are doing. Naming the item you are on is fine (\"§2.4: filtering the documents register\"); keep the rest to what a colleague would see over your shoulder. It stays set until you pass a different one, so a batch costs a few words, not one per call. Required on the tools that act unless a journey or an earlier call already set one.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and exceeds it. It details append semantics, the separating-space rule, empty-text clearing, replace behavior, the exact event side effects (input fires, keydown does not), and the fact that the result reports pre-existing content. This is exemplary behavioral documentation.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, append behavior, replace semantics, clearing rule, event caveat, and usage scope. It is front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers edge cases. Length is justified by the behavioral complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full operational surface: how content is entered, when it is cleared, what side effects occur, and what the result reports. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or anticipate its behavior is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between textValue, replace, and empty-string clearing, and by clarifying which event behaviors apply. It enriches the parameters without restating their schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('text input/textarea/composer by ref'), and immediately distinguishes the tool's core behavior — appending vs. replacing — which separates it from sibling input tools like scout_click or scout_press. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states a broad use case ('valid values and boundary/fuzz values') and gives a critical constraint (keydown-driven triggers won't react to appended text), which effectively tells the agent when behavior may not match expectations. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., 'use scout_press for keydown-sensitive actions'), but the guidance is sufficiently clear for selection.

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