Press or release special DOSBox keys such as F1-F12, arrows, and Escape by KBD_* name when standard typing cannot produce them.
Press or release a single key by its KBD_* name. Use for special keys (F1-F12, arrows, Escape, etc) that input_type cannot produce.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key name, e.g. KBD_enter, KBD_f1, KBD_esc. | |
| pressed | No | True for press, false for release. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly implies a state-changing input action via 'press or release'. It does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., invalid key name), whether a press must be balanced by a release, or any timing/hold semantics.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the disambiguation rule. Nothing redundant.
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 simple 2-parameter, no-output-schema input tool, the description covers purpose, key format, and the sibling that it supersedes. Only edge-case behavior (invalid names, release without press) is 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with only 2 parameters, so the schema already documents both 'key' and 'pressed'. The description reinforces the KBD_* name format and the press/release intent but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb (press/release) plus resource (a single key) with the KBD_* naming convention stated, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling input_type and input_sequence tools.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative (input_type) and the condition that selects this tool ('special keys ... that input_type cannot produce'). It doesn't cover when to prefer input_sequence for multi-key chains, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.