x11-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

press_keys

Send keyboard shortcuts and key combinations to a headless X11 desktop, enabling automation of applications and workflows without affecting the user's session.

Instructions

Press key combos, space-separated: 'ctrl+l', 'Return', 'ctrl+shift+t alt+F4'.

Key names are X keysyms (Return, Tab, Escape, BackSpace, Up, F5, a, 1, ...).

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": {
      "keys": "<keys>"
    },
    "name": "press_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keys`	Yes
`repeat`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the input format and X keysym naming, but does not disclose whether keystrokes go to the focused window, how repeat behaves, or what side effects/errors to expect.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with useful examples and no wasted text. The essential invocation format is immediately visible.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, the description should at least mention focus targeting and repeat semantics to be fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'keys' parameter well with format and keysym examples, but it never mentions the 'repeat' parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Press key combos') and explains that keys are space-separated and X keysyms. It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic text-typing tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling type_text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives format examples and key syntax, but no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as type_text. It does not state prerequisites like window focus or when not to use it.

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