Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windows98-mcp

windows98-mcp

by ido-pluto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

keyboard_keycode

Send low-level Win32 virtual-key or scan-code events to a Windows 98 VM for precise keyboard control. Use this to automate keystrokes or trigger key combinations in the guest system.

Instructions

Send a low-level Win32 virtual-key or scan-code input event. VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vm_name": "<vm_name>"
    },
    "name": "keyboard_keycode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNopress
vm_nameYesUnique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI.
extendedNo
scan_codeNo
virtual_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / vm_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI.",
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._-]{0,63}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "vm_name"
+]
  2. First observedv0.0.0-development

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals a meaningful behavioral trait: the session keeps the VM locked and requires a subsequent vm_unlock call. This is exactly the kind of side-effect/state information an agent needs. It doesn't cover invalid-parameter behavior or effects of conflicting virtual_key/scan_code values, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose first and the state warning second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a five-parameter input tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much to inference: mutability/exclusivity of virtual_key and scan_code, meaning of extended, and how action values map to event behavior. The lock warning is helpful but not sufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description adds little parameter-level detail. It mentions virtual-key or scan-code, which maps to virtual_key/scan_code, but leaves action, extended, and the relationship between virtual_key and scan_code unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies a specific action ('Send...input event') and resource ('Win32 virtual-key or scan-code'), making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like keyboard_key or qemu_keyboard_key, but 'low-level Win32' sets it apart from higher-level keyboard inputs.

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?

It gives operational context: the VM stays locked by this session and vm_unlock must be called when done, which tells the agent when to pair this tool with vm_unlock. However, it gives no explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling keyboard_key/keyboard_hotkey/input_batch, or when low-level keycodes are required.

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