Simulate key events on a connected Android device by providing a keycode. Use this to trigger actions such as pressing Home, Back, or Volume without manual interaction.
Simulates a key event with the specified keycode on the connected Android device. Requires the keycode parameter, which is the keycode of the key to simulate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keycode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action itself but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether the event is inject-and-forget, whether key repeat or key hold is supported, or what the tool returns.
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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is slightly redundant since the schema already marks keycode as required and the term 'keycode' in the first sentence already implies its role.
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 single-integer-parameter tool, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer it sends a key event using a keycode to the device. However, it lacks keycode domain knowledge, output behavior, and sibling differentiation, leaving room for wrong invocation without additional context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that keycode is the keycode of the key to simulate, which adds little beyond the parameter name. It does not explain valid Android keycode values, constants, ranges, examples, or how the keycode maps to device behavior.
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 verb and resource: simulates a key event with a keycode on the connected Android device. It distinguishes from tap/swipe/text siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like input_press, input_back, or input_home.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this generic keyevent tool versus specific siblings like input_back, input_home, input_press, or other input methods. There is no mention of when not to use it or what conditions favor this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.