DaySmart MCP server

daysmart_type

Types text into a numbered field on the current DaySmart page, using the field number from the last read to enter data accurately.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current DaySmart 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": "daysmart_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 14, 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 disclosure burden and it is a single sentence. It does not say whether existing text is cleared or appended, whether keystroke events fire for app-side validation, where focus moves afterward, or what happens on an invalid element number; only the "current page" scoping is conveyed.

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?

One short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter UI automation primitive with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does but not enough of the mutation behavior (field clearing, event triggering, failure modes) for an agent to predict the effect. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so both parameters (text, element) are already documented; the description only echoes that element identifies a numbered field. It adds no guidance on the 1-based indexing relationship to daysmart_read output or on text formatting and escaping, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb plus resource: "Type text into a numbered field on the current DaySmart page." That is distinguishable from the sibling set (click, read, open, close, guide, status) at the level of the action, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

The schema's "Field number from the last read" hints at the prerequisite (a prior daysmart_read to obtain field indices), but the description itself gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as daysmart_click, and no statement of what to do if the field is not fillable or the index is stale or out of range.

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

Deploy Server