Skip to main content
Glama

glass_key

Trigger keyboard shortcuts in native GUI apps by pressing key chords such as ctrl+s or Return. Invalid keys or modifiers are caught before input.

Instructions

Press a key chord (for example ctrl+s or Return), releasing modifiers afterwards. Unknown keys/modifiers fail before input. Use type for literal text; it cannot express shortcuts. For 2+ known steps, use glass_do.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chordYesModifiers plus one key: ctrl+s, Return, alt+F4. Modifiers: ctrl/shift/alt/super (cmd/win/meta aliases). Key: named key, F1-F12 or printable ASCII; case-insensitive names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / chord / description
      Previous value: -"A chord like \"ctrl+s\", \"Return\", \"alt+F4\"."New value: +"Modifiers plus one key: ctrl+s, Return, alt+F4. Modifiers: ctrl/shift/alt/super (cmd/win/meta aliases). Key: named key, F1-F12 or printable ASCII; case-insensitive names."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"KeyArgs"
  3. Addedv1.1.0
  4. Removedv1.0.3
  5. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'releasing modifiers afterwards' and 'Unknown keys/modifiers fail before input'. These are not present in the minimal annotations and help the agent predict side effects and failure modes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral notes and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's nature make this less critical. Minor gap, not a major omission.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, fully describing the 'chord' parameter with modifier list and examples. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Press a key chord' with examples. It distinguishes itself from glass_type ('Use type for literal text') and glass_do ('For 2+ known steps'), clearly differentiating among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives: use glass_type for literal text, use glass_do for sequences. It also clarifies that this tool handles shortcuts, which is a clear usage condition.

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