Sends a key or key combination, such as 'ctrl-c' or 'Return', to a specified lume VM over VNC, letting an agent trigger shortcuts and menus in the VM's UI.
指定した lume VM にキー(組み合わせ)を送信する。例: 'ctrl-c', 'super-shift-g', 'Return'。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| vm_name | Yes |
| 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 discloses the core effect (keystrokes are sent to the named VM) and gives key-combination syntax, but omits whether the VM must be running/focused, what happens on an invalid key, and any permission or timing requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by concrete syntax examples. No filler or redundancy.
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 input tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and zero parameter description coverage, it should say more about prerequisite VM state and parameter expectations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The examples add useful syntax for the 'key' parameter, but 'vm_name' is only indirectly implied by 'specified lume VM' and no format or constraints are given for either parameter.
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 resource ('send key combinations to the specified lume VM'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like click and type_text. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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 examples ('ctrl-c', 'Return') imply when this tool is appropriate versus typing text, but the description never states preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.