Enter text into an input, textarea, or contenteditable element by ref, replacing existing content unless append is true. Supports submit and fresh snapshot options.
Type text into an input, textarea or contenteditable element by ref. Replaces existing text unless append is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| append | No | ||
| submit | No | Press Enter after typing. | |
| snapshot | No | Return a fresh snapshot after the action. |
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. It usefully discloses that existing text is replaced unless append is true — a destructive-ish side effect not stated anywhere in the schema. However, it omits other behavior an agent needs: whether focus is required, what happens on an invalid ref, and how submit/snapshot interact.
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 dense sentence pair with the core action front-loaded and the replacement caveat immediately after — no filler. It could be slightly expanded without waste, but nothing present is redundant.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the append toggle but leaves the critical ref-provenance question unanswered and does not describe the return value or error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 40%: only submit and snapshot carry descriptions; ref, text, and append are bare. The description partially compensates by explaining append's replace-vs-append semantics, but it adds nothing about what ref refers to (an element reference, presumably from snapshot) or the format of text.
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 (type) and resource target (input, textarea, contenteditable element identified by ref), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like press or click. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, but the target-element enumeration makes the scope clear.
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 guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as press (for key events) or click (for activation), nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the element must exist and be focusable). The append clause is a behavioral detail, not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.