Skip to main content
Glama

type_text

Clears an input field and types the supplied text using a CSS, XPath, ID, name, tag, class, or link selector, with configurable timeout.

Instructions

Clear and type text into an input 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": "type_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNoStrategycss
textYesText to type
timeoutNoSeconds
selectorYesLocator value
clear_firstNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.9.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / by / description
      Previous value: -"Locator strategy"New value: +"Strategy"
    • changedInput schema / properties / selector / description
      Previous value: -"CSS selector, XPath, or other locator value"New value: +"Locator value"
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeout / description
      Previous value: -"Wait timeout in seconds"New value: +"Seconds"
  2. First observedv0.3.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions clearing and typing, but does not explain waiting behavior, the timeout parameter's effect, failure modes, or the default clear_first=true behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important usage details unstated.

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 five-parameter browser-automation action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits alternatives, timeout semantics, clear_first behavior, and what to expect on success or failure.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description's 'Clear' hints at clear_first but does not explain that parameter's default or effect, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb phrase ('Clear and type') and resource ('text into an input field'), so the basic action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as send_keys, clear_field, or fill_form.

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. An agent must guess whether to use type_text, send_keys, fill_form, or a clear_field-plus-send_keys combination.

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