Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
camoufox-mcp

camoufox-mcp

by ccostello97
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

browser_fill

Fill text into a web element after clearing existing content. Provide the element reference and desired text to update form fields, inputs, or editable areas.

Instructions

Fill text into an element (clears first)

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "browser_fill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesElement reference from snapshot
textYesText to fill (clears existing content first)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'clears first', but omits critical details: what happens if the element is not found, whether it waits for the element, event triggering, or scrolling behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could benefit from additional structure to separate usage notes, though the current form is efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is too brief for a browser automation tool. It does not explain how to obtain the element reference, what happens on error, or the return value (no output schema). Given the absence of annotations and output schema the description is incomplete.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., ref is 'Element reference from snapshot', text includes clearing note). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 action 'Fill text into an element' and mentions the clearing behavior, making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'browser_type', which could cause confusion about which tool to use for text input.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_type or browser_click. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a snapshot) or when not to use it.

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