Send keyboard keys or key chords to submit forms and navigate pages in a headless browser, enabling actions without a mouse.
Press a key or chord on the keyboard (e.g. "Enter", "Tab", "Escape", "ArrowDown", "Control+A"). Useful to submit forms or navigate without a mouse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key name or chord, e.g. "Enter" or "Control+A" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action and a likely consequence (form submission/navigation), but does not explain synthetic-event behavior, focus requirements, or side effects beyond pressing a key. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero fluff. The first sentence conveys the operation and examples; the second adds the use case. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the combination of description and schema is sufficient. It lacks only deeper side-effect or event-detail disclosure, which is a minor gap given the straightforward scope.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines the 'key' parameter with examples matching the description. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it sits at the baseline of 3.
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 and resource: 'Press a key or chord on the keyboard.' The examples ('Enter', 'Tab', 'Escape', 'ArrowDown', 'Control+A') and the use case ('submit forms or navigate without a mouse') make it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like click, hover, or type.
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?
Provides clear contexts: 'submit forms or navigate without a mouse.' However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., type for text, click for button activation) or explicitly state when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual but not comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.