Type text into browser input fields using a CSS selector, with options to clear existing content or target a specific tab for form filling and automated data entry.
Type text into an input field.
Args: selector: CSS selector of the input element text: Text to type clear: Whether to clear existing text first tab_id: Optional tab to target. Defaults to active tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| clear | No | ||
| tab_id | No | ||
| selector | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects. It doesn't say whether typing fires real keyboard events, whether it focuses the element, what happens if the selector is not found, or whether it waits for the element to be interactable.
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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence followed by a compact per-argument list. Given 0% schema coverage, the argument list is warranted rather than redundant, though the 'Args:' formatting could be tighter.
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 mutating interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers parameters adequately but omits return/error behavior, waiting semantics, and sibling disambiguation. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps an agent would want filled before calling it.
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, and it documents all four parameters: selector (CSS selector of the input), text, clear (clear existing text first), and tab_id (defaults to active tab). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't state whether selector matches a single or multiple elements.
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 and resource ('Type text into an input field'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like browser_fill, browser_set_editable_content, or browser_keypress, which appear to overlap in purpose.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_fill (likely a direct value-set) or browser_keypress (individual keystrokes). The only usage-style detail is the tab_id default, which is a parameter note, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.