tmux-mcp-server

by manhnv198669

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_special_key

Send special key shortcuts like Enter, Ctrl+C, or arrow keys to a tmux pane. Automate terminal interactions for processes requiring keyboard input.

Instructions

Send a special key shortcut (e.g. Enter, Up, C-c)

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_special_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`key`	No	Enter
`repeat`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as target selection, side effects on the session, or the meaning of repeat. It only repeats the action with examples, offering minimal transparency beyond the structured data.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and provides useful examples without excessive detail.

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 relatively simple, but the description leaves the 'target' parameter ambiguous and fails to differentiate from 'send_keys'. Given the output schema may cover returns, the description still lacks crucial operational context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the meaning of 'target' and 'repeat' is entirely unresolved. The examples in the description merely echo the 'key' enum and do not clarify parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Send') and the resource ('special key shortcut') with concrete examples. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'send_keys', but the term 'special key' and examples differentiate the purpose enough for basic understanding.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_keys, nor does it mention prerequisites. It only states what the tool does without any context for selection.

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