Type text using keyboard into a previously focused input
Type text using keyboard into a previously focused input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to type | |
| pageId | Yes | Targets a specific page by ID. | |
| submitKey | No | Optional key to press after typing. E.g., "Enter", "Tab", "Escape" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{}New value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context by clarifying that keystrokes go to whatever is already focused rather than a targeted element. It does not cover what happens if nothing is focused, whether existing text is cleared, or error behavior 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the most decision-relevant constraint (prior focus) appears immediately.
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 simple 3-param interaction tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and focus precondition, but leaves out sibling disambiguation and failure semantics, which matter for an agent choosing between typing, filling, and key-pressing.
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 coverage is 100%, so text, pageId, and submitKey are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., it never mentions submitKey's role), so the baseline of 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 (type) and mechanism (keyboard input) plus a key precondition ('previously focused input'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fill, fill_form, or press_key, which is the main clarity gap.
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?
'Previously focused input' implies a prerequisite (focus first) but never says when to use this versus fill/fill_form or press_key. Usage is inferable rather than explicit, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.