Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

@nxavis/agent-browser-mcp

by softallice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

browser_press

Press keyboard keys in the browser to trigger actions, navigate, or submit forms. Use with session ID to control a specific tab.

Instructions

Press a keyboard key

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_press"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesKey to press (e.g., 'Enter', 'Escape', 'Tab')
sessionIdNoBrowser session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., triggering form submission, key events, or requiring focus). The agent cannot infer whether this is a safe read-only operation or a state-changing one.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple action and front-loaded with the key verb.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It lacks information on return values, effect on the browser state, or how it relates to sibling actions like typing. For a tool with many sibling actions, this level of completeness is insufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters (key and sessionId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have elaborated on key format or supported modifiers.

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 'Press a keyboard key' clearly names the action (press) and the target (keyboard key). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click (mouse click) and browser_type (typing a sequence), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is concise and 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_type, browser_click, or browser_fill. No context is given about focus requirements, key combinations, or interactions with forms.

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