Press non-text keys or explicit keyboard chords like Return, Escape, or cmd+a to send keyboard input to desktop apps. Optionally target a specific app or choose input strategy for reliable execution.
Press a non-text key or explicit chord (Return, Escape, cmd+a).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| app_ref | No | ||
| strategy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the core operation. It does not disclose how app_ref is used, what strategy controls, whether accessibility permissions are needed, or any side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The examples are compact and immediately clarify what qualifies as a non-text key or chord.
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?
Despite a nested app_ref object, a strategy enum, and no output schema, the description does not explain how to target an application, choose a strategy, or interpret the result. An agent only knows what to press, not how to control the press.
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 provides valid examples for text, but app_ref and strategy are left completely unexplained; their roles in targeting an app and selecting an input method are not described.
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 states a specific action ('Press') and a specific resource ('non-text key or explicit chord'), with concrete examples (Return, Escape, cmd+a). This clearly distinguishes it from text-entry siblings like type.
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 'non-text' qualifier implies this tool is for key chords and special keys rather than text entry, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over hold_key, perform_action, or type, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.