Skip to main content
Glama

type

Simulate user text input into web elements using CSS selectors for automated browser testing and interaction validation.

Instructions

Type text into an input field identified by a CSS selector

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selectorYesCSS selector of the input field
textYesText to type

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the 'type' tool handler using Puppeteer to wait for and type text into a CSS selector.
    async type(selector: string, text: string) {
        const page = await this.init();
        try {
            await page.waitForSelector(selector, { timeout: 5000 });
            await page.type(selector, text);
            return `Typed "${text}" into ${selector}`;
        } catch (e: any) {
            throw new Error(`Failed to type into ${selector}: ${e.message}`);
        }
    }
  • Dispatch handler in the MCP call tool request that invokes the browserManager.type method.
    case "type":
        result = await browserManager.type(String(args?.selector), String(args?.text));
        break;
  • Input schema definition for the 'type' tool, specifying selector and text parameters.
    inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
            selector: { type: "string", description: "CSS selector of the input field" },
            text: { type: "string", description: "Text to type" },
        },
        required: ["selector", "text"],
    },
  • src/index.ts:48-59 (registration)
    Registration of the 'type' tool in the TOOLS array used for listing available tools.
    {
        name: "type",
        description: "Type text into an input field identified by a CSS selector",
        inputSchema: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
                selector: { type: "string", description: "CSS selector of the input field" },
                text: { type: "string", description: "Text to type" },
            },
            required: ["selector", "text"],
        },
    },
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Type text') but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether it simulates keystrokes, clears existing content, handles errors if the selector is invalid, or requires the page to be in a specific state. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and target, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly in a web automation context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('selector' and 'text') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Type text') and target resource ('into an input field identified by a CSS selector'), using precise verbs and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'get_text'. It directly communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' or 'set_viewport', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a page to be loaded. It lacks explicit context for usage decisions, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/samusilv/qa-agent-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server