Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
open-browser-control

open-browser-control

by smankoo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_type

Type text into a browser element by specifying a CSS selector or using the currently focused element. Optionally clear existing text and press Enter to submit.

Instructions

Type text into the focused element or a specific element.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "browser_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to type
clearNoClear existing text before typing
selectorNoCSS selector to focus before typing
pressEnterNoPress Enter after typing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only mentions typing into an element. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., element must be editable), side effects, or behavior when the element is not focused. The parameters hint at clearing and pressing Enter, but no further context is given.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which aids quick comprehension. However, it may be too terse, missing an opportunity to add valuable context without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of browser automation and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error states, or when to combine with other tools. The agent lacks critical context for effective invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates the concept of focusing a specific element, which is already implied by the 'selector' parameter.

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 action (type text) and target (focused element or specific element), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from browser_keypress, which could be used for similar input tasks.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_keypress or browser_click. The description merely states the action without contextual usage cues.

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