Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shell-use

shell-use

by kyuheon-kr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

send_keys

Control CLI applications like vim, htop, and gdb by sending key inputs to tmux sessions. Supports tmux key notation for inputs like Enter and C-c.

Instructions

Sends key input. Supports tmux key notation (Enter, C-c, etc.).

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": {
      "session": "<session>",
      "keys": "<keys>"
    },
    "name": "send_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYes
sessionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for tmux key notation but does not disclose side effects, whether it requires an active session, or any error conditions. For a mutation-like tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise, two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the key notation detail. Every word 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?

The tool is simple, but the description is minimal. It lacks context about the session parameter, usage in workflows, and any behavioral nuances. While an output schema exists, the description alone does not adequately complete the picture for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains the 'keys' parameter via tmux notation, but entirely omits the 'session' parameter, leaving it undefined. The description adds partial meaning to one parameter but fails to cover the second.

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 states it sends key input and supports tmux key notation, which clearly defines the action and resource. It differentiates somewhat from siblings like send_text by emphasizing key notation, but it does not explicitly contrast with send_text.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_text. The description implies usage for key input operations but does not state exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context.

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