arc_typeFills a text field in the browser and submits by pressing Enter when required. Use to input text into form fields.
Preenche um campo de texto. Com submit, aperta Enter no fim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Ref vindo de arc_read_page (preferível). | |
| text | No | Texto visível do elemento. | |
| tabId | No | Aba alvo. Omita para usar a aba própria ativa (nunca uma aba do usuário). | |
| value | Yes | ||
| submit | No | ||
| selector | No | Seletor CSS. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the notable behavior of pressing Enter when submit is true, but does not mention other side effects like whether existing field content is replaced or appended, or whether the field is focused first. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and only partially addresses side effects.
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 consists of two short, clear sentences that front-load the primary action and follow with the conditional submit behavior. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain the distinction between 'value' and 'text', how 'ref' or 'selector' are used to identify the element, or the behavior when multiple matching elements exist. An agent would likely need additional information to use the tool correctly in diverse scenarios.
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 description gives some context that 'value' is the text to fill and 'submit' triggers Enter, but it does not explicitly map these to the schema parameters. The schema already provides descriptions for ref, text, tabId, and selector, so the added value is limited to hinting at the meaning of the two undocumented parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Preenche' = fills) and resource ('campo de texto' = text field), and additionally describes the submit behavior of pressing Enter. This is a distinct and unambiguous action that sets it apart from other input-related tools like arc_press.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arc_click or arc_press. The description does not mention conditions, scenarios, or comparisons that would help an agent decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.