AestheticsPro MCP Server

aestheticspro_type

Types text into a numbered field on the current AestheticsPro page, letting AI agents fill form inputs by field number from the last read.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current AestheticsPro page.

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "aestheticspro_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to type.
`element`	Yes	Field number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses little beyond the basic action. It does not say whether typing appends to or replaces existing field content, whether it triggers keystroke events or autocomplete, whether it submits the form, or what happens if the element number is stale – all material for a UI-typing tool.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the target. Nothing in it is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what happens and where. However, with zero annotations it leaves unaddressed the replace-versus-append question and the requirement that a read precede this call, which are the main sources of misuse for a field-typing tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal framing ('numbered field', 'current page') beyond what the schema's 'Field number from the last read' and 'Text to type' already convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Type text into a numbered field on the current AestheticsPro page.' An agent can distinguish this from the click/read siblings, since it clearly targets a numbered field rather than a generic element or page read.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'current page' hints that the page must already be open and that field numbers come from a prior read, but neither is stated, and no alternative (e.g. clicking a link versus typing text) is named. An agent must infer the prerequisite from the schema's 'Field number from the last read' rather than from the description.

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

Deploy Server