Send keyboard key presses like Enter, Tab, or Escape to a specific Brave Browser tab, enabling automated navigation and interaction.
Send a keyboard key press (e.g. Enter, Escape, Tab, Backspace).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key name (Enter, Tab, Escape, etc.) | |
| tab_id | Yes | The ID of the tab |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the obvious action ('press a keyboard key') and gives examples. It does not reveal whether the key is sent to the focused element, whether keys are pressed and released, or what side effects or limitations exist.
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?
One short sentence contains the core operation and helpful examples. There is no filler or redundant detail, and the most important action is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple two-parameter action, the description is minimally viable: the operation and parameters are covered. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without context about required focus or what happens after the key press.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `tab_id` and `key` adequately. The description adds a small amount of context by giving example key names, but does not go beyond the existing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb ('Send') and resource ('a keyboard key press'), with concrete examples (Enter, Escape, Tab, Backspace). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wrave_type_text, but the focused wording makes the action distinguishable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wrave_type_text or wrave_type_and_submit. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., focused element), or cases where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.