Skip to main content
Glama

scout_type

Enter text into a field by element ref, appending to existing content or replacing it with replace=true. Handles boundary values and can press Enter after typing.

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
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.
textValueNoText to type
pressEnterNoPress Enter after typing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses append-with-preservation behavior, separating-space logic, replace/clear semantics, the fact that input events fire but keydown does not, and edge-case handling for empty values. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but purposeful, with behavioral facts and edge cases packed into a compact block. It is somewhat long and could be broken into clearer sentences, but every sentence earns its place by adding operational detail.

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?

Given six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers core behavior, parameter-level semantics, event caveats, replace/clear logic, and boundary-value use cases. The only minor omission is the exact result format, but the description does mention what the result reports.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains what appending does to existing content, when replace is appropriate, and that empty textValue clears. This enriches the raw parameter definitions with behavioral context.

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 states a specific verb ('Type'), resource ('text input/textarea/composer'), and method ('by ref'). It also clarifies the core behavioral distinction between appending and replacing, making it easy to tell apart from sibling input tools like scout_click or scout_press.

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 clearly explains when to use replace=true vs default appending, notes that empty textValue clears the field, and gives an explicit use case ('valid values and boundary/fuzz values'). It also warns that keydown-driven menus won't react to appended text, which helps an agent decide between this tool and alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is otherwise strong.

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