Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chrome-bridge-mcp

chrome-bridge-mcp

by deng1986
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

fill_text

Fills an input, textarea, or contenteditable element with specified text using a CSS selector. Supports optional Chrome tab targeting.

Instructions

Fill an input, textarea, or contenteditable element.

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "fill_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selectorYesCSS selector for the editable element.
textYesText to fill.
tabIdNoOptional Chrome tab id. Defaults to the first page tab.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'Fill'. It does not explain whether existing text is cleared, whether it supports paste, or error handling (e.g., if element is not found). This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 sentence, to the point, with no extraneous words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks context on behavior (e.g., does it wait for element? is it synchronous?). It is too minimal for a tool that interacts with the page.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'selector', 'text', and 'tabId'. No enums or nested objects, so minimal extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fill' and specifies the target types: input, textarea, or contenteditable element. It precisely identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like click_selector (clicking) or get_current_page (reading).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as click_selector or run_js. There are no prerequisites or context for when not to use it (e.g., disabled elements).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools