Types text into a specified numbered field on the current Riverside page, letting agents fill forms or update fields by field number from the last read.
Type text into a numbered field on the current Riverside page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to type. | |
| element | Yes | Field number from the last read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and it does not say whether typing replaces existing field content or appends to it, whether it can submit a form, how focus is handled, or what happens when the element number is out of range. The only behavioral claim is that it targets the 'current' page, which at least signals state dependence, but the mutation semantics are undisclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the scoping qualifier ('numbered field on the current Riverside page') immediately after; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what it does and roughly where. It is missing the sequencing contract (read before type) and any note on how existing field content is affected, both of which matter for a state-mutating UI tool with no annotations.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'text' and 'element' documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'element' as a numbered field on the live page but adds no format, range, or ordering detail beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb (type) plus a specific target (a numbered field on the current Riverside page), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling riverside_click (which activates something) and riverside_read (which retrieves). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'numbered field' plus 'current Riverside page' hints that a prior riverside_read is needed to obtain the field number, but the description never states that precondition or when to prefer typing over riverside_click. The prerequisite is only recoverable from the schema's 'Field number from the last read' note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.