Drop approved files or MIME-typed text data onto a target element to enable controlled file uploads and text injection during browser automation.
Drop approved files or MIME-typed text data onto a target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| paths | No | ||
| pageId | No | Defaults to the active page | |
| target | Yes | Snapshot ref (e12) or unique CSS selector | |
| sessionId | No | Defaults to the active session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.24Input schema / properties / pageId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stable page ID; defaults to the session active page"New value: +"Defaults to the active page"Input schema / properties / sessionId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional session ID; defaults to this MCP client active session"New value: +"Defaults to the active session"Input schema / properties / target / descriptionPrevious value: -"Snapshot ref such as e12, aria-ref=e12, or a unique CSS selector"New value: +"Snapshot ref (e12) or unique CSS selector"v2026.8.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a prerequisite ('approved files') but never explains what approval means, whether files must first be uploaded, what events are fired, or what happens on failure.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its brevity works structurally, though the ambiguity around 'approved' could have been resolved with a few precise words.
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 browser interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'data' object, one sentence is insufficient. Key prerequisites, data format expectations, and interaction behavior are unaddressed.
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 60%, and the description adds some meaning by indicating that 'data' is MIME-typed text content. However, it does not explain the 'data' object value format, the 'paths' approval requirement, or the target selector semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Drop') and resource ('approved files or MIME-typed text data') and names the recipient ('target'). It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like nex_browser_drag or nex_browser_file_upload, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'drop onto a target'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative sibling tools are mentioned, so routing between drop, drag, and file upload is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.