minimax_keyDispatches single keys or modifier shortcuts (such as Return or Cmd+N) to control sessions and tasks in the MiniMax Code desktop app.
派发键盘单键或快捷键组合(如 Return、cmd+n)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | 按键名(如 return, escape, a) | |
| modifiers | No | 修饰键(cmd, shift等) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action — it does not say which window or session receives the keypress, whether focus must be established first (e.g., via minimax_activate), or what happens if the target is not focused.
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?
One short sentence with the action front-loaded and examples attached; there is no filler. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity.
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 keyboard-injection tool inside a multi-window browser automation suite, the crucial missing piece is the target: nothing states that the key is sent to the currently active window or what the caller must do first. With no output schema, the description should have said at least roughly what a successful dispatch returns or how failures surface.
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 coverage is 100%, so both the key name and the modifiers array are already documented in the schema. The 'cmd+n' example loosely illustrates how the two parameters combine, but adds no new syntax or constraint meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb (派发) with a specific resource (keyboard single key or shortcut combination) and gives two concrete examples (Return, cmd+n). It does not name or differentiate itself from near siblings like minimax_type or minimax_click_text, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this instead of the sibling text-entry tool minimax_type, or when a shortcut should be a single key vs. a modifier combination. An agent must infer the boundary between typing text and dispatching a keypress entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.