Skip to main content
Glama

fill_form

Fill form fields in a Chrome tab using field labels or names, with optional submit and intent labeling for audit logs.

Instructions

Fill form fields and optionally submit. Pass intent="..." (≤120 chars) to label this action in audit logs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refsNoOptional ref→value map (#831). Refs come from a recent read_page(mode="ax") snapshot. When present, refs are processed before `fields` and skip AX/CSS discovery. Stale refs produce a STALE_REF error — no silent coordinate fallback.
tabIdYesTab ID to execute on
fieldsNoField label/name/placeholder to value map. Checkboxes: "true"/"false"
intentNoHuman-readable label for this action in audit logs (≤120 chars)
submitNoSubmit button query after fill
verifyNoVerify mode. boolean is legacy: true→"screenshot", false→"none". String enum returns a compact diff signal (AX-hash delta + pHash, ≤4KB).
waitForMsNoPoll timeout for dynamic fields in ms. Default: 0
loginCheckNoAfter submit, run a generic login-failure detector that flips success → failure when the password form is still mounted. Default: "auto". Set "off" to restore pre-#658 behavior.
clear_firstNoClear before fill. Default: true
pollIntervalNoPoll interval in ms (50-2000). Default: 300
capture_artifactNoWhen true, stage replay artifact steps for oc_skill_record after successfully filled fields. Default false is a strict no-op.
returnAfterStateNoOptional chaining hint. When "ax" or "dom", the response includes a page snapshot of that mode captured after the post-action wait, removing the need for a follow-up read_page call. Default: "none".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.12.8

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds the audit logging behavior for intent, but fails to disclose important aspects like side effects, error states (e.g., STALE_REF), timeout behavior, or the fact that it performs mutations. Annotations are neutral and do not compensate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loads the core purpose and efficiently introduces the key intent feature.

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?

Despite the tool having 12 parameters with complex interactions (refs, verify, returnAfterState, polling), the description gives no overview of the workflow or how these pieces fit together. It lacks sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without relying entirely on the parameter descriptions.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the intent parameter's audit purpose. No additional insights beyond schema are provided for other parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'fill' and resource 'form fields', and mentions optional submit and intent labeling. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'form_input', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or when to choose alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria for sibling tools.

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