Type text into the focused input field and optionally press a key like Enter or Tab, enabling automated form filling and submission in browser sessions.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds that it simulates keyboard input and requires focus, but does not disclose behaviors like whether it replaces existing content, triggers events, or handles auto-submit. This is minimal added value beyond annotations.
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 sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core action and its key condition. Every word earns its place.
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 typing tool with full schema coverage and a clear prerequisite, the description covers essential aspects. It might benefit from noting that the target must be an input element, but this is implied by 'input'. Adequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, with clear descriptions for text, pageId, and submitKey. The description does not add new meaning about parameters, only reinforces the focus requirement indirectly. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'type text', the resource 'keyboard into a previously focused input', and the prerequisite that the input must already be focused. This distinguishes it from siblings like fill or press_key, even without naming them.
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?
It explicitly mentions the prerequisite of a previously focused input, guiding when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for complex forms, fill_form might be more appropriate).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.