Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
open-browser-control

open-browser-control

by smankoo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_keypress

Simulate pressing a keyboard key, optionally with Ctrl, Alt, Shift, or Meta modifiers, to control the browser.

Instructions

Press a keyboard key, optionally with modifiers.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "browser_keypress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesKey name (Enter, Tab, Escape, ArrowDown, etc.)
modifiersNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility, but it only states the action without any traits (e.g., event behavior, context limitations, or side effects). This minimal information is insufficient for an agent to understand impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, easy to parse. However, it is too brief to provide necessary details, bordering on under-specification. It earns a middle score for efficiency but lack of substance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple keypress tool with a basic schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It omits details like key event type (keydown/keyup), return value, or behavior in different contexts, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% (key has description, modifiers has enum but no description). The tool description adds only 'optionally with modifiers,' which is already inferable from the schema. It does not explain modifier combinations or key naming conventions beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Press a keyboard key, optionally with modifiers' clearly states the action (press) and resource (keyboard key). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_type (typing text) and browser_click (clicking), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_type for text input or browser_click for UI interaction. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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