Skip to main content
Glama

crewnest_type

Types text into a numbered field on the current CrewNest page using the field number from the last read.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current CrewNest 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": "crewnest_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to type.
elementYesField number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether typed text replaces or appends to existing content, whether it submits the form or triggers change events, what happens if the element index no longer maps to the current page state, or what a successful call returns. The phrase "current CrewNest page" is the only hint that the tool is stateful and page-dependent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in the other dimensions.

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?

For a stateful UI input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover how text interacts with existing field content and how to confirm success, and it covers neither. An agent can form the call from the schema but cannot predict the side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented there, including "Field number from the last read" for element. The description restates the same idea ("numbered field") without adding format, range, or state-staleness details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Type text into a numbered field on the current CrewNest page" gives a specific verb (type), a specific target (numbered field), and a scope (current page), which clearly separates it from siblings like crewnest_click, crewnest_read, and crewnest_open. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases, so it is not a clean 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as focusing or opening a page first. The only guidance is implied: "field number from the last read" hints that a crewnest_read must precede this call, but the agent must infer that ordering.

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