Press keys or shortcuts like ctrl+l, Return, or Tab inside a Kasm session to navigate menus, submit forms, or trigger actions during remote desktop automation.
Press keys/shortcuts in the Kasm session, e.g. 'ctrl+l', 'Return', 'Tab', 'Escape'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | Kasm session id. Omit to use your newest running session. |
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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose where the keys are sent (focused element vs. session), whether it blocks or returns a result, what happens if keys are invalid, or any failure/auth behavior.
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?
One sentence, no filler, with the key-format examples front-loaded where an agent needs them. Efficient, though the example list could be trimmed or the tool distinction added without cost.
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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the action and the key format. The notable gap is routing versus kasm_type, which an agent must guess at, leaving the definition just barely sufficient.
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 50%: session_id is documented in the schema (including the useful 'omit to use newest session' default), but keys is undocumented there. The description compensates by giving concrete key-string examples ('ctrl+l', 'Return', 'Tab', 'Escape'), which conveys modifier syntax that the plain 'string' type 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?
A specific verb (press) plus the resource acted on (keys/shortcuts in a Kasm session), with concrete examples of the key syntax. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling kasm_type, which is the closest and most confusable tool in the list, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description never says when to use this tool versus kasm_type (typing text) or kasm_click. No prerequisites, no focus/context requirements, and no when-not-to-use guidance are given; the examples imply usage but do not state it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.