Presses a keyboard key such as Enter, Tab, Escape, or F5 to submit forms, switch fields, or trigger shortcuts in AI-controlled Windows or Linux desktops.
Press a keyboard key ('enter', 'tab', 'escape', 'f5', ...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds nothing beyond the tool name about behavior: no mention of key down/up behavior, modifier support, what happens on invalid keys, or whether the target window needs focus. Minimal disclosure for a tool that sends input events.
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?
A single clear sentence with useful examples and zero filler. The key action is front-loaded. Slightly more detail could be added, but it remains appropriately concise for a simple 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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves behavioral questions open (e.g., modifier combinations, error behavior, focus requirements). Given the low complexity, the gaps are notable but not severe.
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 adds valid key examples ('enter', 'tab', 'escape', 'f5') that give meaning to the 'key' parameter. However, it doesn't specify formatting rules, case sensitivity, or whether arbitrary key names are accepted. Partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific verb ('Press') and resource ('keyboard key') with concrete examples ('enter', 'tab', 'escape', 'f5'). Clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from a potential keyboard 'type' sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisites (e.g., window focus). The context is implicit from 'keyboard key' but never made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.