Sends Enter or Escape to the focused element on an expected screen to submit a form or dismiss UI, requiring write authorization.
Send one allowlisted key, enter or escape, to the focused element on the expected screen. Enter submits the form that holds the focused field. Requires authorized_effects:["write"].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| port | No | ||
| app_id | No | ||
| target_url | No | ||
| expected_screen | Yes | ||
| authorized_effects | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the allowlisted key set, the form-submission effect of Enter, and the authorized_effects write requirement, but it does not explain escape behavior, screen-mismatch handling, or what the call returns.
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?
Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action, side effect, and authorization requirement appear immediately.
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?
With six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits the roles of port, app_id, and target_url, as well as the exact semantics of expected_screen.
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%, and the description only gives meaning to key and, loosely, expected_screen and authorized_effects. It leaves port, app_id, and target_url completely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell from the prose how to target the correct browser.
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 names the action and resource precisely: send an allowlisted key (enter or escape) to the focused element on the expected screen. It implicitly separates itself from click/fill/scroll siblings by being the keyboard-key tool, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It describes what Enter does but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to pulse_browser_click, pulse_browser_fill, or desktop equivalents. The prerequisites mentioned are the focused element, expected screen, and authorized_effects write.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.