Robot Actions — Remote Device Control

webpage_press_key

Press a key in the device browser — works on BOTH iOS Safari and Android Chrome, and on both the key is real: Android dispatches a trusted browser-level keyDown/keyUp pair, and iOS presses it on the device hardware-keyboard surface, which DOES move focus (Tab moves through the form) and reaches key handlers. Where the hardware surface is unavailable, iOS falls back to a synthesized isTrusted:false KeyboardEvent on document.activeElement that does NOT move focus, and for Enter inside a also calls form.requestSubmit()/submit() so submission still fires. The response reports which was used via via.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Key to press
`udid`	Yes	Device UDID / serial (iOS or Android)
`pageId`	No	Target page/tab id — auto-picked when omitted
`socket`	No	Android only: abstract unix socket name (default: chrome_devtools_remote)
`platformVersion`	No	Ignored (kept for compatibility)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels by detailing trusted vs. synthesized events, focus movement implications, fallback behavior on iOS, and form submission handling. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with significant platform-specific nuances.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every clause provides critical behavioral detail. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into platform specifics. Slightly verbose but each sentence earns its place given the complexity.

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 cross-platform browser key tool, the description covers all major behavioral aspects: trusted events, focus behavior, fallbacks, and form submission. Even without an output schema, it tells the user what to expect via the `via` field. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the response's `via` field, but doesn't explain individual parameters further. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: pressing a key in the device browser, specifically for iOS Safari and Android Chrome. It distinguishes itself from generic key tools by focusing on browser-level key events and cross-platform behavior, making its scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when needing to send key presses in a browser context on iOS/Android devices. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the detailed browser-specific behavior implies its niche compared to sibling tools like device_key or ios_key_hid.

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

All Robot Actions — Remote Device Control tools Inspect

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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).

Tool Count1/5

333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.

Completeness4/5

The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?