Mithwire MCP

browser_type

Type text into a browser input field by selector within a Mithwire MCP session, with options to clear, submit, and wait.

Instructions

Type text into an input selector.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "selector": "<selector>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "browser_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`clear`	No
`submit`	No
`selector`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`wait_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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, yet it discloses only the basic action. It says nothing about what the clear/submit flags destroy or trigger, whether typing waits for the element, or how the wait_seconds default behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency. It is structurally fine yet under-specified for a tool with five optional/required parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a browser mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know how clear/submit interact with the typed text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly covers 'text' and 'selector'. The meaning and effects of clear, submit, wait_seconds, and session_id are left completely unexplained.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (Type) and resource (text into an input selector), which is enough to distinguish it from browser_click or browser_press_hold. It is clear but does not explicitly name any sibling or scoping condition, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing session_id), and no mention of alternatives such as browser_click or browser_evaluate for filling fields. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server