safari-browser-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_press_key

Presses a key or key combination in Safari, such as Enter or Shift+Tab, to trigger keyboard actions in the current or specified tab.

Instructions

Press a key or key combination, e.g. Enter or Shift+Tab.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "browser_press_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes
`tabId`	No	Tab id from browser_tabs. Default: current tab.
`backend`	No	Backend: real = your Safari, driver = isolated safaridriver session. Default: session default.
`trusted`	No	Use real OS-level input (focus moves to Safari). Default: false on real, true on driver.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about where the key is delivered, that 'trusted' moves OS focus to Safari, or that the backend choice changes behavior. Those facts live only in the schema's parameter descriptions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted wording. Size is appropriate, though it is arguably a bit thin for a 4-parameter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits focus prerequisites, the side effects of the 'trusted' flag, and what the result of a key press is.

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 75%; the required 'key' parameter has no schema description, and the description partially compensates by showing modifier-combination syntax ('Shift+Tab'). It adds nothing for tabId, backend, or trusted, which the schema already documents.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Press a key or key combination') with concrete examples (Enter, Shift+Tab). It is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_type or browser_click, though it never names them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the examples; there is no statement of when to prefer this over browser_type or browser_fill_form, and no prerequisite/conditional guidance (e.g. element must be focused first).

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