Types text into the focused window using any Unicode characters regardless of keyboard layout, with newlines pressing Return and tabs pressing Tab for reliable input automation.
Type text into the focused window. Any Unicode works, independent of keyboard layout.
Newlines press Return and tabs press Tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| delay_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that any Unicode works independent of keyboard layout and that newlines/tabs trigger Return/Tab, but it omits behavior around the delay_ms parameter, focus failures, or side effects of typing into the active window.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by useful text-handling details.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a two-parameter interaction tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete because it never explains delay_ms or what happens if no window is focused.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds some meaning for the text parameter by explaining Unicode and newline/tab handling, but it says nothing about delay_ms, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 a specific verb and target: "Type text into the focused window." This clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like press_keys, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.
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 implies usage by explaining how newlines and tabs are handled, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as press_keys or bash. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.