Press a keyboard key to interact with a web page: edit text controls, move focus with Tab, or activate links with Enter. Optionally target an element or browser session.
Edits supported text controls, moves focus with Tab, or activates links with Enter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Keyboard key to press (e.g. 'Enter', 'Tab'). | |
| element_id | No | Optional element ID target. | |
| session_id | No | Optional browser tab/session identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It fails to mention that pressing Enter on a link may navigate away or trigger forms, or that the tool might alter page state. Given it can 'edit' and 'activate', it should warn about potential navigation or state changes.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core functionality immediately and is appropriately concise for a simple key-press tool.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the schema covers parameter details. However, the description lacks essential behavioral caveats like potential navigation or side effects when activating links, which is a notable gap given the absence of annotations. It is adequate but not fully complete for safe invocation.
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 100% for all three parameters, providing baseline 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that specific keys (Enter, Tab) have specific effects (activate links, move focus), which enhances the agent's understanding of how the key parameter behaves beyond the schema's simple example.
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 clearly states three distinct actions: editing text controls, moving focus with Tab, and activating links with Enter. This gives a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates it from siblings like browser_click and browser_type without ambiguity.
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 description provides clear use cases for pressing keys, such as editing, tabbing, and activating links. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_type or browser_click, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the action list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.