Skip to main content
Glama
escapeWu

chrome-agent-bridge

by escapeWu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Fill page field

browser_fill

Fill text into a Chrome tab field using a CSS selector and value; use only for backward-compatible selector-based automation.

Instructions

Compatibility selector-based fill. New workflows should use browser_snapshot refs with browser_act.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabIdYes
valueYes
browserNoWhich connected Chrome to use: an instanceId or label from browser_list_instances. Required when more than one browser is connected; session-based tools infer it from their sessionId.
selectorYes
debuggerSessionIdNoRaw or network session ID this task holds on the tab. Required when the tab has a live debugger lease; omit otherwise.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / debuggerSessionId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Raw or network session ID this task holds on the tab. Required when the tab has a live debugger lease; omit otherwise.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / browser
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which connected Chrome to use: an instanceId or label from browser_list_instances. Required when more than one browser is connected; session-based tools infer it from their sessionId.",
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.6.0

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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether input/change events fire, whether the tab must be active, or what happens on failure. The only behavioral signal is the compatibility/deprecation framing, which is context but not behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the compatibility caveat and the alternative, with no filler. The tradeoff is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it is efficient but thin.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description omits permissions, return/error behavior, and most parameter meaning. The deprecation note is useful but insufficient to call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 only 40%, with tabId, selector, and value undocumented, so the description must compensate and does not. 'selector-based fill' marginally maps to the selector/value params but adds no format, syntax, or required-parameter meaning.

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 names the mechanism ('selector-based fill') and its status ('compatibility'), which combined with the title 'Fill page field' tells an agent this writes a value into a form field identified by a CSS selector. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the newer ref-based approach, though the phrase 'selector-based fill' is a fragment that never states the resource (a page/form field) explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit routing instruction: 'New workflows should use browser_snapshot refs with browser_act.' That names the preferred alternative and the condition (new vs. existing/compatibility workflows) that selects it. It stops short of stating when this tool is the correct choice beyond 'legacy compatibility'.

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