Type text into a remote KVM target via HID, wait for keystrokes to land, and receive a post-paste screenshot to verify before pressing Enter.
Type text on the target via HID. Blocks until the typing has landed, then returns a post-paste screenshot — safe to send Enter after it returns. (input tier)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behavioral aspects: blocks until typing lands, returns a post-paste screenshot, and indicates a follow-up action (Enter) is safe after completion. No hidden side effects mentioned.
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?
The description is concise, using a single sentence with a useful parenthetical note. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, blocking behavior, and return type. It does not mention failure modes, but for this simplicity level it is adequate.
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?
The single parameter 'text' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not elaborate on it beyond implying it is the text to type. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description clearly states the action (type text) and resource (target via HID), and mentions blocking behavior and return of a screenshot. It does not explicitly differentiate from kvm_keystroke, but the name and context make it reasonably clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kvm_keystroke. The note about being safe to send Enter after returns implies a usage tip but does not provide clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.