Hold a specified keyboard key or Godot input action down, preventing auto-release for continuous in-game behavior.
Hold a key down without auto-releasing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Key name (e.g. "W", "Space", "Shift") | |
| action | No | Godot input action name (e.g. "move_forward") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key behavior—no auto-release—which is genuinely informative. But it does not explain how the held state ends, whether game_key_release is required, or what happens if both key and action parameters are provided.
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, information-dense sentence with zero wasted words. 'Without auto-releasing' adds critical behavioral meaning while keeping the description compact and readable.
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 is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves some operational context unstated: how the hold is released, whether key and action are mutually exclusive or combined, and whether any prior press is required. An agent can infer some of this from sibling names, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.
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%, so both parameters already have meaningful descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not above baseline.
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 operation: hold a key down, with the qualifier 'without auto-releasing' distinguishing it from a normal press-and-release behavior. It is specific, uses a clear verb and resource, and separates it from related input tools like game_key_press.
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 phrase 'without auto-releasing' implies a use case where a key must stay held, and sibling tools like game_key_release hint at the pairing. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus game_key_press or game_key_release, and no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.