Sends real key presses to Safari to trigger shortcuts, navigation, and form actions, including Return, Tab, cmd+l, and shift+tab; Accessibility permission is required.
Send real key presses to Safari, e.g. "Return", "Tab", "cmd+l", "shift+tab". Needs Accessibility permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| repeat | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that these are "real key presses" and that Accessibility permission is needed, but it does not describe side effects, failure behavior when permission is missing, target-focus requirements, or whether shortcuts like cmd+q/cmd+w can be dangerous.
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 with no filler, front-loading the purpose and examples before the permission prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information.
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 covers the main purpose, key format examples, and the Accessibility prerequisite. It is still missing repeat semantics and behavioral details around focus and error handling, which are important given the absence of annotations.
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%, and the description compensates partially by giving concrete key-string examples like "Return", "Tab", "cmd+l", and "shift+tab". It does not explain the optional repeat parameter or its 1-100 range, leaving half the parameters undocumented beyond the raw schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: sending real key presses to Safari, with concrete key examples such as "Return", "Tab", and "cmd+l". It is clearly distinct from sibling mouse/text-entry tools like click and form_input, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 by the examples and by the note that Accessibility permission is required, making it clear this is for keyboard shortcuts in Safari. However, it does not state when to prefer this over click, form_input, or javascript, nor does it describe when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.