Send a real macOS key press (single character, Enter, Tab, Escape, or F1-F8) with optional modifier keys, enabling native UI interactions and satisfying isTrusted event requirements for automated browser testing.
Press a REAL OS key (Enter, Tab, Escape, ArrowDown, F1-F8, or a single char), optionally with modifiers. For native UI and isTrusted-checking pages. macOS only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| modifiers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real OS-level nature and macOS-only constraint, but does not explain side effects, focus requirements, or how modifiers are applied. The description is honest but lacks depth about operational details.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and supported with constraints. Every phrase adds value; no fluff.
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 description covers the key action, allowed values, platform, and use case. However, it omits details on modifier syntax and does not explicitly contrast with browser_press_key, which could lead to confusion. For a simple tool, it's adequate but has gaps in parameter specification.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists allowed key values and mentions 'single char', which helps, but the 'modifiers' parameter is only described as 'optionally with modifiers' without specifying valid modifier strings (e.g., 'Shift', 'Cmd') or their format. This leaves ambiguity for correct invocation.
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 the tool presses a REAL OS key, lists specific allowed keys (Enter, Tab, Escape, ArrowDown, F1-F8, or a single char), and notes optional modifiers. This distinguishes it from synthetic key tools like browser_press_key by emphasizing 'REAL OS key'.
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?
Explicitly states the intended use case: 'For native UI and isTrusted-checking pages' and notes the platform constraint 'macOS only'. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.