Selenium MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Type text into editable element' implies a mutation/write operation but doesn't specify side effects (e.g., whether it triggers events, changes page state, or requires focus). It also omits error conditions (e.g., if element isn't editable) and doesn't describe what happens after typing (e.g., whether it waits for page updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Type text') and target ('editable element'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like the 'submit' parameter's effect. For a browser automation tool that modifies page state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (element, ref, submit, text). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'text' is typed and 'element' is editable. Since the schema already provides full descriptions, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given high schema coverage.

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?

The description 'Type text into editable element' clearly states the action (type) and target (editable element), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling interactions like browser_click or browser_wait_for, which might also involve editable elements in different ways.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page snapshot first), when not to use it (e.g., for non-editable elements), or how it relates to sibling tools like browser_click or browser_submit (if that existed). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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