Types text into input or textarea fields on the active or specified tab, optionally pressing Enter to submit.
Types text into an input or textarea element on the active or specified tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Indexed reference ID of the input element (e.g. "1", "2") assigned by browser_get_dom. | |
| text | Yes | Text to type. | |
| tabId | No | Optional tab ID. | |
| selector | No | CSS selector of input element. | |
| pressEnter | No | Whether to press Enter after typing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Indexed reference ID of the input element (e.g. \"1\", \"2\") assigned by browser_get_dom.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it. It never states whether typing replaces or appends to existing content, whether the element is focused first, or what happens if the element is missing or not editable — all material for a mutation-style action.
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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the tool's five parameters.
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 five-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits target-selection precedence, the browser_get_dom prerequisite for refs, and any failure behavior, leaving the agent to infer how to call it correctly.
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%, so each of the five parameters (ref, text, tabId, selector, pressEnter) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, such as whether ref and selector are mutually exclusive or which takes precedence — the baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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?
States a specific verb ('Types') and resource ('text into an input or textarea element'), which distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click, browser_set_checked, and browser_select_option. It does not, however, clarify how the target is chosen (ref vs selector) or how it relates to browser_get_dom, which produces the refs it consumes.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. Critically, an agent is not told that a ref must typically first be obtained via browser_get_dom, nor when to prefer ref over selector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.