type_textType text into the focused input field on an Android, iOS, or cloud device, optionally targeting a specific element, clearing existing content first, or pressing Enter to submit.
Type into the focused field (tap it first, or pass som_id). submit presses Enter after.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| clear | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| som_id | No | ||
| submit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the submit behavior and the need for focus, but fails to disclose what the clear parameter does, whether text is appended or replaces existing content, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple behavioral options.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the action and the submit behavior, and the prerequisite is clearly stated. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description only addresses 2 of them (som_id and submit). It omits clear and device entirely, and doesn't mention potential edge cases like handling special characters or long text. With zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this is incomplete for safe and correct use.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains som_id (as an alternative to tap) and submit (presses Enter), but leaves clear and device completely unexplained. The agent cannot know what clear does or how to use device without additional context. This is insufficient given the zero coverage.
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 clearly states the action 'Type into the focused field' with a specific resource, and differentiates from siblings like tap and press_enter by explaining the field focus mechanism (tap or som_id) and the submit behavior. It is unambiguous and concise.
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?
The description provides a prerequisite (tap first or pass som_id) and explains the submit flag's effect. It doesn't explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare to alternatives, but the context for when to use it (typing text) is implied. This is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.