Fill text into input elements by snapshot reference (@1) or CSS selector, optionally clearing first, to automate Chrome form entry.
Fill text into an input element by its snapshot reference (@1, @2, ...) or CSS selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Reference from snapshot (e.g. '@1') | |
| text | Yes | Text to enter | |
| clear | No | Clear before typing | |
| selector | No | CSS selector if ref is not used |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not disclose what events are dispatched, whether the element is focused first, what happens on a non-input target or a stale ref, or how failures are reported. Only the basic mutation intent is conveyed.
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 the action first and the two addressing modes second; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Four params, no nested objects, no output schema, and full schema coverage mean the structured data is largely sufficient for calling it. However, with zero annotations the description omits behavioral caveats an agent needs (ref staleness, event behavior, failure modes), leaving a real gap for a browser-mutation tool.
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 the schema already documents ref, text, clear, and selector. The description merely repeats the ref/selector addressing modes with no additional format, precedence, or conflict-resolution detail (e.g., what happens if both ref and selector are given). Baseline 3 applies.
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 (fill) and resource (text into an input element) plus the two addressing modes, which separates it from siblings like browser_click or browser_press_key. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with one, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies when to use it (to enter text into an input) and offers two addressing options (snapshot ref vs CSS selector), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., element must be an input, page must be loaded, snapshot freshness). Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.