Skip to main content
Glama
JustasMonkev

MCP Accessibility Scanner

browser_press_key

Destructive

Simulate keyboard key presses during automated web accessibility scans to test and verify WCAG compliance, ensuring interactions are accessible to all users.

Instructions

Press a key on the keyboard

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesName of the key to press or a character to generate, such as `ArrowLeft` or `a`

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of the 'browser_press_key' tool by pressing the specified key using the Playwright page.keyboard.press method.
      handle: async (tab, params, response) => {
        response.setIncludeSnapshot();
        response.addCode(`// Press ${params.key}`);
        response.addCode(`await page.keyboard.press('${params.key}');`);
    
        await tab.waitForCompletion(async () => {
          await tab.page.keyboard.press(params.key);
        });
      },
    });
  • The Zod schema definition for the 'browser_press_key' tool, specifying input as a 'key' string and marking it as 'destructive'.
    schema: {
      name: 'browser_press_key',
      title: 'Press a key',
      description: 'Press a key on the keyboard',
      inputSchema: z.object({
        key: z.string().describe('Name of the key to press or a character to generate, such as `ArrowLeft` or `a`'),
      }),
      type: 'destructive',
    },
  • src/tools.ts:38-56 (registration)
    The 'browser_press_key' tool is registered as part of the 'keyboard' tools spread into the central 'allTools' array, which is filtered and provided to the MCP server backend.
    export const allTools: Tool<any>[] = [
      ...common,
      ...console,
      ...dialogs,
      ...evaluate,
      ...files,
      ...form,
      ...install,
      ...keyboard,
      ...navigate,
      ...network,
      ...mouse,
      ...pdf,
      ...screenshot,
      ...snapshot,
      ...tabs,
      ...wait,
      ...verify,
    ];
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as what gets affected (e.g., browser state, page focus) or any constraints like rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a destructive action with one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output expectations, making it adequate but incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'key' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, such as examples beyond those in the schema or special cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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?

The description 'Press a key on the keyboard' clearly states the action (press) and target (key on keyboard), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_type' which might involve keyboard input, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'browser_press_key' over 'browser_type' or other input-related siblings, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent without operational context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustasMonkev/mcp-accessibility-scanner'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server