Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Ui Keystroke

ui_keystroke

Sends a key combination, e.g. "cmd+shift+5", "return", "cmd+,", "escape". Modifiers: cmd, shift, alt/option, ctrl, fn. The last token is the key. Returns {sent, delivery:"posted_not_confirmed"} — sent means the key events were POSTED, NOT that the app acted on them: CGEvent carries no delivery confirmation, and a keystroke's effect is arbitrary so nothing can be read back to prove it. Confirm the effect with ui_get_element / ui_read_tree rather than trusting sent. Modifiers are released after the combo, so a following ui_type is not swallowed. unknown_key if the key isn't recognized. Requires Accessibility permission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYese.g. cmd+shift+5, return, cmd+,

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations by explaining the return semantics (posted not confirmed), lack of delivery confirmation, arbitrary effect, modifier release, unknown_key error, and Accessibility permission requirement. This rich behavioral detail is exactly what an agent needs and no annotation covers it.

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?

Every sentence adds essential value: purpose, syntax, return-semantics caveat, confirmation strategy, modifier behavior, error case, permission. Dense but no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return value, failure modes, side effects, and prerequisites. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, providing the baseline. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance: key format, modifiers list, 'last token is the key', and examples. It clarifies syntax beyond the schema's bare description.

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 ('Sends a key combination') with concrete examples, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ui_type and ui_click. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (sending key combos, not typing text) and references ui_get_element/ui_read_tree for confirming effects. It does not explicitly contrast all alternatives, but the examples and modifier note ('a following ui_type is not swallowed') make usage context clear.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources