Enter text or values into web form inputs or textareas using a CSS selector or input name, enabling AI agents to complete forms during browser automation.
Enter text or value into a form input or textarea.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Text value to insert. | |
| selector | Yes | CSS selector or input name. | |
| session_id | No | Session identifier (default: 'default'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether existing content is overwritten or appended, whether input/change events are dispatched (critical for reactive form frameworks), what happens on a missing selector, or what is returned. Only the target element type is constrained.
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 and the action clearly leading. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the coverage gaps.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description should cover prerequisites and side effects. It omits sequencing with navigate_page, event dispatch behavior, and overwrite semantics, leaving the agent under-informed about a state-changing interaction.
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 selector, value, and session_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-documented parameters.
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 (enter) and target resource (form input or textarea), which is concrete enough to separate it from click_element or navigate_page. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so an agent gets no routing help beyond the verb.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. page must be navigated and the field may need to be focused or clicked first), and no mention of alternatives when the target is not a text input. The agent must infer all of this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.