browser-mcp

browser_type

Insert text into the focused element to complete forms and enter data during automated browser sessions.

Instructions

Insert text into the focused element.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "browser_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Insert text into the focused element' states the basic behavior but omits important behavioral traits such as whether it types keystrokes, appends at the cursor, clears existing content, or triggers input events. The term 'insert' is ambiguous relative to browser_fill.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It front-loads the action and target effectively and earns every word.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, more context is needed. It does not tell the agent about the required focused state, how to set that state, or how this differs from browser_fill and browser_press, so the description alone is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a string named 'text'. The description confirms the text is what gets inserted, adding a bit of meaning beyond the schema, but it offers no extra details like encoding, newline handling, or length limits. This is adequate, not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('insert text') and resource ('the focused element'), so the tool's core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like browser_fill or browser_press, but 'focused element' is a distinguishing qualifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over browser_fill, browser_press, or browser_click. It also does not mention whether the element must already be focused or whether this tool focuses it first, leaving selection and sequencing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.