Types text into an input matched by a selector using React-compatible events, optionally clearing existing content to fill web forms.
Type into input (React-compatible events)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| clear | No | ||
| profile | No | Browser ID from sleeper_sessions; optional with one connected browser. | |
| stealth | No | ||
| selector | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The 'React-compatible events' note is a genuinely useful behavioral trait (it explains why it differs from a naive value assignment), but nothing is said about clear/stealth behavior, permissions, or what happens to existing input.
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 line with zero waste, but the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a six-parameter tool rather than being tight but complete.
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?
With six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks enough to distinguish this from sibling input tools or to use the optional parameters correctly.
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 description coverage is only 17% (just the profile param), so the description must compensate. It only implies the selector and text parameters and says nothing about the meaning of clear, stealth, tab, or profile, leaving four of six parameters semantically undocumented.
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 clear verb+resource (type into input) and adds a useful qualifier ('React-compatible events'). However it offers no differentiation from siblings that also handle text entry or key input, such as sleeper_fill_form, sleeper_keys, or sleeper_press.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings that overlap (sleeper_fill_form for multi-field entry, sleeper_keys/sleeper_press for keyboard input, sleeper_click_text). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.