Send ASCII text to the focused GUI element one key at a time, enabling agents to enter input into active fields during automated testing.
Type text into whatever has the keyboard focus, a key at a time. ASCII only: a character with no key fails the call, once what's before it is typed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to type | |
| session | Yes | Its name, from start_session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare non-read-only and non-destructive, so safety is partly covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: ASCII-only constraint and, critically, non-atomic failure semantics (a bad character fails the call only after everything preceding it has already been typed). That partial-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the ASCII/partial-failure caveat. Dense and waste-free, though the trailing clause 'once what's before it is typed' is slightly garbled and could be phrased more cleanly.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the targeting model (keyboard focus), an input constraint, and the failure mode. It omits how newlines or non-character keys are handled and that press_keys should be used for those, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with only two required parameters, so the schema fully documents 'text' and 'session'. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the ASCII constraint already implied, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (type) and resource (text into the focused control), and the phrase 'into whatever has the keyboard focus' distinguishes it from siblings like press_keys, which sends key combinations rather than character streams. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the action 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear the tool requires something already focused, and the 'a key at a time' phrasing hints at when press_keys would be preferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.