Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Designers

by com.allthepossibles
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Keyboard shortcut conflicts

check_keyboard_shortcuts
Read-only

Checks a shortcut map. Pass shortcuts, one per line in the form Cmd+K: Open search (Mod, Cmd, Ctrl, Alt, Option, Shift and symbols like the command key are understood), and optionally platform: any (default), mac or windows. Flags duplicates within your list, collisions with common browser, text-editing and OS shortcuts, Ctrl+Alt combinations that equal AltGr on Windows or the VoiceOver modifier on Mac, screen reader keys, and single-character shortcuts under WCAG 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts (turn off, remap, or active only on focus). The built-in table is a convention-level summary of defaults, not exhaustive. No rendering, nothing stored.

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": {
      "shortcuts": "<shortcuts>"
    },
    "name": "check_keyboard_shortcuts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformNoPlatform to judge against. Default any.
shortcutsYesOne shortcut per line, such as `Cmd+K: Open search`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, and the description still adds real value: it discloses that nothing is stored or rendered, that the built-in table is a convention-level default summary rather than exhaustive, and that findings are heuristic. That caveat about limits is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the verb, the required parameter, and its format before the enumeration of checks. Every sentence carries information, though the mid-paragraph enumeration makes it slightly harder to scan than a structured list would be.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it enumerates the finding categories (duplicates, browser/OS collisions, AltGr/VoiceOver conflicts, screen reader keys, WCAG 2.1.4). The exact result shape is not described, but an agent can call it confidently.

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%, so the schema documents both params, but the description goes further: it spells out accepted modifier aliases (Mod, Cmd, Ctrl, Alt, Option, Shift, symbols) and confirms the default for `platform`. This exceeds the schema's single-example documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks a shortcut map') and immediately names the exact input shape. No sibling tool covers keyboard shortcuts, and the description makes that unique scope unmistakable.

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?

Explains the required input format and the optional platform switch, plus what categories of problems it flags and remediation options (turn off, remap, or active only on focus). It does not explicitly frame when to prefer it over an alternative, but there is no competing sibling, so the practical guidance is complete.

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

All Designers toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources