Set, append, or clear text in input and textarea elements of WeChat mini-programs. Locate elements by reference or locator path to automate form entry.
向input/textarea元素输入文本
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| target | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| nextActions | Yes | ||
| observation | Yes | ||
| partialData | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool simulates user typing, replaces the existing value, triggers events, or how it interacts with focus/visibility—only that text is entered. Critical behavior around the 'mode' parameter is also not revealed in prose.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, so it earns only a mid score.
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?
This is a complex tool with a rich target locator schema, three parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. A single clause describing the tool's purpose is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly across the possible target kinds and modes.
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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what 'target' accepts, what mode 'replace/append/clear' means, or how 'text' is applied. The schema alone cannot carry this burden, and the description adds almost no semantic value.
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 states a specific action ('input text') and target resource ('input/textarea elements'), so an agent can tell this is a text-entry tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like set_form_control, but the core purpose is clear.
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 alternatives such as set_form_control or click. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.