Skip to main content
Glama

browser_smart_fill

Automatically generate realistic test data for form fields by field type, then fill the target input. Supports email, phone, name, address, and more to cover edge cases.

Instructions

Smart form filler: auto-generate format-valid realistic test data by field type and fill the target input. Supports 10+ types (email, phone, name, address, idCard, number, text, url, date, password); each call produces random data to cover edge cases.

中文详情:

  • 用途:智能表单填充工具,根据字段类型自动生成符合格式的真实测试数据并填入指定输入框

  • 何时使用:注册表单需要合法邮箱/手机号时;地址表单需要格式正确数据时;密码字段需要符合复杂度要求时;批量生成测试数据覆盖边界场景时

  • 输出:{ ok: boolean, selector: string, fieldType: string, generatedValue: string, timestamp: string }

  • 参数:

    • selector (string, 必填):目标输入框的 CSS 选择器

    • fieldType (string, 必填):字段类型,可选 email/phone/name/address/idCard/number/text/url/date/password

    • options (object, 可选):生成选项,各字段类型有不同选项

      • domain (string, 可选):email 类型的域名

      • min (number, 可选):number 类型的最小值

      • max (number, 可选):number 类型的最大值

      • minLen (number, 可选):text 类型的最小长度

      • maxLen (number, 可选):text 类型的最大长度

      • start (string, 可选):date 类型的起始日期

      • end (string, 可选):date 类型的结束日期

  • 错误:selector 无匹配抛出 'element not found';fieldType 非法抛出 'Invalid fieldType';元素不可编辑抛出 'element not editable'

  • 示例:{"selector":"#email","fieldType":"email","options":{"domain":"test.com"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNo生成选项(可选),各字段类型有不同选项
selectorYes目标输入框的 CSS 选择器
fieldTypeYes字段类型,支持: email | phone | name | address | idCard | number | text | url | date | password
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: random data generation, supported types, error messages for invalid selectors/field types/non-editable elements, and output structure. This exceeds typical transparency requirements.

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 well-organized with separate sections for purpose, usage, output, parameters, errors, and an example. The Chinese section adds redundancy but does not detract significantly; overall it is appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameters with details, errors, output format, and an example. Given no output schema, it compensates fully, making the tool's behavior and usage clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the options sub-object fields and providing context (e.g., domain for email). It clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's baseline.

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 tool's purpose: auto-generating format-valid test data and filling inputs. It lists supported field types but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser_form_fill, though the generation aspect implies distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides specific use cases (e.g., registration forms needing valid email/phone) in both English and Chinese, giving clear context for when to use. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/validpilot/ai-verify-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server