Press a key combination.
modifiers bitmask: LCtrl=1, LShift=2, LAlt=4, LWin=8
Common keycodes: Enter=40, Escape=41, Tab=43, Space=44,
F4=61, PageDown=78, PageUp=75, Win=227
Examples:
Alt+F4 → key(4, [61])
Ctrl+W → key(1, [26])
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keycodes | Yes | ||
| modifiers | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the bitmask and keycodes, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as system-wide effects, feedback, or handling of invalid combinations. It provides adequate but not rich transparency.
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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, parameter explanations, common keycodes, examples. Every sentence is informative and well-organized.
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?
Given the simple tool and available output schema (not shown but present), the description covers input semantics well. It could mention that the key press is global or active window focused, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: modifiers as a bitmask with key meanings, keycodes as integers with common examples. Examples further clarify usage. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
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 'Press a key combination', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It provides specific details about modifiers and keycodes, and examples distinguish it from sibling tools like click or type_text.
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?
The description explains how to construct key combinations but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_text or click. There is no explicit context for when to use or avoid this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: click actions, mouse movement, keyboard input, scrolling, screen captures (raw, calibrated, with grid or crosshair), and calibration. No overlap between tools.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., get_corners, take_screenshot, set_corners), with longer names following the same convention (e.g., take_screenshot_with_crosshair).
12 tools are well-scoped for remote computer control and calibration, covering essential actions without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core operations (click, type, scroll, screenshot, calibration) but lacks a dedicated drag or right-click tool, which agents may need to work around.