Skip to main content
Glama

input_event_manage

Simulate keyboard, mouse, and action inputs, replay event macros, and inspect input states to automate gameplay testing in Godot.

Instructions

Input Event Simulation, Macro Replay, and Virtual Actions.

Ops:

  • simulate_action(action, pressed=True, strength=1.0) Simulate an input action press or release in the running game or editor.

  • simulate_key(key, pressed=True, echo=False, shift=False, ctrl=False, alt=False) Simulate a keyboard key event (e.g. 'W', 'Space', 'Escape', or keycode).

  • simulate_mouse_button(button_index=1, pressed=True, position=[0.0, 0.0]) Simulate a mouse button press or release at coordinates (1=Left, 2=Right, 3=Middle).

  • simulate_mouse_motion(position=[0.0, 0.0], relative=[0.0, 0.0], velocity=[0.0, 0.0]) Simulate a mouse cursor motion event.

  • replay_macro(events=[]) Replay a sequential list of input events for automated gameplay testing.

  • get_input_state(action) Inspect whether an input action is pressed and its current strength.

Canonical call shape: {"op": "<verb>", "params": {...}}. Flat op parameters are accepted as a compatibility alias when the client transmits them; op and session_id remain top-level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYes
paramsNo
session_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv5.0.28

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists operations and parameters but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether simulated inputs permanently affect game state), permissions required, reversibility, or rate limits. It mentions 'in the running game or editor' for one op but omits broader behavioral traits like whether actions are destructive or require a paused state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a summary line followed by a bullet-like list of operations and their parameters. It is slightly long but each line adds necessary information because the schema is generic. The canonical call shape is included, which aids parsing. It is efficient for the complexity covered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has multiple operations and the schema provides no parameter details, the description is quite complete: it covers all ops, their parameters, and the call format. However, it does not describe return values for operations like get_input_state beyond implying inspection, nor does it mention error conditions. For a tool of this complexity, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is generic (only 'op' and 'params'), covering 0% of the actual parameters. The description compensates fully by documenting each op's parameters in detail (e.g., action, pressed, strength; key, echo, shift; button_index, position; etc.). This provides meaning that the schema lacks, making it easy for an agent to construct correct calls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is for 'Input Event Simulation, Macro Replay, and Virtual Actions' and then enumerates specific operations like simulate_action, simulate_key, replay_macro, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like input_map_manage (which is about configuring input mappings) by focusing on runtime simulation and inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (simulate input events in a running game/editor) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusion criteria. For instance, it doesn't mention that input_map_manage should be used for defining mappings rather than simulating. The usage context is clear but not formally contrasted with siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools