Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-playwright-automation

mcp-playwright-automation

by pedro95nunes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Fill form

fillForm

Fill a form field by providing a CSS selector and text input. Automates form entry in a live browser session for web automation tasks.

Instructions

Fills a form field

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "fillForm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to fill in
selectorYesCSS selector of the field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Fills a form field' but does not explain whether existing text is replaced, whether events are triggered, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single five-word sentence with zero filler and the core verb front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for the overall completeness needed.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits behavioral context and usage selection guidance, which an agent would need to call it reliably.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a clear description ('CSS selector of the field', 'Text to fill in'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 says 'Fills a form field' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'navigate', 'click', and 'getPageContent'. It is not as rich as it could be, but the core purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools