Type text or send key bursts into a terminal session, expanding tokens like {ctrl+c}, and optionally press Enter.
Type text and/or a burst of keys into a session. Tokens: {enter} {tab} {esc} {ctrl+c} {up}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | No | Burst of keys or text chunks | |
| text | No | Text to type; {tokens} like {ctrl+c} are expanded | |
| enter | No | Press Enter after the text | |
| session_id | Yes | Session id from term_open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says what the tool does and lists tokens; it does not mention side effects, failure modes, whether it blocks, or if it requires a prior open session. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.
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?
One sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by a compact token list. No filler; every word contributes meaning.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior and interaction between parameters (e.g., whether text and keys are combined, if enter defaults to true). It does not describe what happens when invoked or how the outcome is reported, leaving an agent uncertain about post-call behavior.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including the token expansion in 'text'. The description adds a token list, but that largely duplicates what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (type) and target (a session), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on input rather than reading or resizing. The listed tokens clarify the input format. This is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with term_exec, term_read, or other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active session from term_open. The usage context is only implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.