tmux-mcp-server

by manhnv198669

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_keys

Send literal string text to a target tmux pane, optionally pressing Enter to submit. Enables AI assistants to type commands into terminal sessions.

Instructions

Send literal string text to a target pane

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "send_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keys`	No
`enter`	No
`target`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds context that input is literal text and targets a pane. However, it does not disclose side effects such as key interpretation, cursor behavior, or the impact of the 'enter' parameter, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise, making every word contribute to the meaning.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description omits critical operational details: whether 'target' is required, how pane targets are specified, and the function of the 'enter' flag. The tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions and no default behavior explained, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'keys' (the literal string) and 'target' (the pane), but does not explain the 'enter' boolean or the expected format for 'target'. Significant parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool sends literal string text to a target pane, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'send_special_key' by emphasizing 'literal string text', which conveys the scope and purpose effectively.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through the qualifier 'literal', suggesting contrast with special-key sending, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_special_key' or 'run_command'. There is no direct mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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