Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Send Key Combo

send_key_combo

Triggers desktop actions by simulating key combinations such as ctrl+alt+t or alt+F4 during Linux debugging and hardening.

Instructions

Send a key combination like 'ctrl+alt+t' or 'alt+F4'.

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": {
      "combo": "<combo>"
    },
    "name": "send_key_combo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
comboYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses only the basic action of sending a key combination. It does not explain which window receives input, whether focus is required, or how key presses and releases are handled; the output schema makes return-value explanation unnecessary.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and immediately supplies two concrete examples. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to attempt common shortcuts. However, the absence of targeting and focus behavior, supported-key details, and sibling-selection guidance leaves meaningful operational gaps, especially without annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema defines combo only as an undescribed string, the examples establish a useful “+”-joined format and illustrate both letter and function-key combinations. Supported key tokens, case sensitivity, whitespace handling, and modifier ordering remain undocumented, but the examples substantially compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb “Send,” the resource “key combination,” and examples such as “ctrl+alt+t” make the action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish multi-key combinations from the sibling press_key, so it does not earn the sibling-differentiating top score.

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?

The examples imply that the tool is for multi-key keyboard shortcuts, providing some usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor routing to relevant siblings such as press_key or key_reference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools