Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agy_computer_use.mcp_server

agy_computer_use.mcp_server

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cu_hotkey

Dispatches multi-key chord sequences or single key taps to automate desktop tasks, enabling keyboard shortcut execution for Windows automation workflows.

Instructions

Dispatch multi-key chord sequence (e.g. ctrl+shift+s) or single key tap.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "keys": "<keys>"
    },
    "name": "cu_hotkey"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYesOrdered key names.
dry_runNoSynthesize without OS dispatch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies that real OS-level input is synthesized. It does not disclose whether keys go to the focused window, whether accessibility permissions are required, or what happens on failure — all critical for an input-synthesis tool.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and both operating modes, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a small two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits the behavioral context (target window, permissions, error behavior) that no structured field supplies.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description's chord example ('ctrl+shift+s') adds modest value by illustrating the expected key-name format for the `keys` array. The `dry_run` parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Dispatch') with the resource ('multi-key chord sequence or single key tap') and gives a concrete example (ctrl+shift+s). This clearly separates it from cu_type (text entry) and cu_click (pointer), though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The chord example implies the intended use case (keyboard shortcuts), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cu_type or cu_replay_macro, and no prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools