Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Theseus

Theseus

by ywapom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fill

Enter a specified value into the browser input field identified by its label, enabling accurate form completion during automated website interactions.

Instructions

Type value into the input whose label matches label.

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": {
      "label": "<label>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "fill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYes
valueYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: whether existing text is cleared or appended, whether it triggers change/keyboard events, what happens if no label matches, or whether it submits the form. Only the basic mutation intent ('type') is conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the matching criterion is stated inline where it matters. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutation tool with no annotations the description should cover failure modes (no matching label), overwrite behavior, and page-state preconditions. Those gaps are material for an agent deciding whether it can call this safely.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'label' is the matching key against the input's label, but 'value' is only restated and overwrite/append semantics are undefined, leaving key behavior of both parameters ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('the input whose label matches label'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from click/click_index/navigate siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with them, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus click, click_index, or submit, nor any preconditions (e.g., field must be visible, page must be loaded). The agent must infer everything about context of use from the name.

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