Types text, including Chinese, into the focused window via clipboard and Ctrl+V to avoid SendKeys Unicode issues. Optionally verifies the input in a specified screen region.
在当前焦点处输入文本，支持中文。 实现走剪贴板 + Ctrl+V（SendKeys 不支持 Unicode，会把中文打成乱码）。 注意：会改动你的剪贴板内容，并输入到当前焦点窗口。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 要输入的文本（可为中文） | |
| verify | No | ||
| verifyRegion | No | 只比对这块矩形（传目标窗口的 rect），不传则全屏 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the clipboard is overwritten, that input goes to whatever window currently has focus (a real risk of misdirected input), and why the clipboard hack exists (SendKeys mangles Unicode). It does not say whether the prior clipboard is restored, nor anything about timing or what is returned.
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 compact lines, front-loaded with what it does and supports, then the mechanism rationale, then the side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place and the most important caveat is last but still prominent.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs its description to carry safety and result semantics. The clipboard/focus side effects are covered, but the verify/verifyRegion behavior, whether focus must be set beforehand, and what the call returns (success text? verification result?) remain unaddressed.
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?
Coverage is 67%: only 'text' is documented in the schema, while 'verify' has no description anywhere and 'verifyRegion' is explained only in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it never mentions that verification (likely a screenshot comparison) can be requested, which is a meaningful behavioral toggle for the caller.
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 (type text) and target (current focus), plus a notable capability constraint (Chinese/Unicode supported). It implicitly separates itself from key-press typing via the Ctrl+V mechanism, but never names desktop_key or desktop_cdp_type, so an agent must still infer the boundary with the browser typing 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?
Usage is only implied: 'types into the currently focused window' suggests the agent should focus a window first (desktop_focus_window) but doesn't say so, and there is no guidance on when to prefer desktop_key for shortcuts or desktop_cdp_type for browser fields. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.