Stop any running keyboard sequence and release all tracked keys to reset input state.
Stop any running sequence and release every tracked key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "release_all"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds the specific behavioral scope of 'any' and 'every' to clarify the breadth of the side effect. It does not reveal the full consequence of releasing every tracked key, such as whether state can be recovered, but given the annotations this is adequate.
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 entire description is one tight sentence of eight words, combined two actions with clear scope. No fluff, no repetition, and the key side effect is front-loaded. This is an exemplary concise definition.
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?
With no parameters and no required arguments, the description fully specifies what the tool does: it stops any running sequence and releases every tracked key. Given the simple action and zero-param signature, there is nothing critical missing for an agent to invoke it effectively.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly captures everything a parameter could convey. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which fits here.
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: stops any running sequence and releases every tracked key. The scope ('any', 'every') distinguishes it from siblings like sequence_stop and key_up without naming them explicitly. It is clear and actionable, though it could have explicitly differentiated from those siblings.
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 usage context is implied: this is the comprehensive stop/release tool for clearing all sequence and key state. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over sequence_stop or key_up, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. An agent can infer but is not directly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.