Simulate key presses or input actions in a running Godot game using key names or action names with press/release control.
Send a key press or input action to the running game
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Key name (e.g. "W", "Space", "Escape", "Enter") | |
| action | No | Godot input action name (e.g. "move_forward", "ui_accept") | |
| pressed | No | Press (true) or release (false). Default: true (auto-release) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and its single sentence only restates the purpose. The important auto-release behavior ('Default: true (auto-release)') lives in the pressed parameter schema rather than the description, and the description doesn't disclose requirements like game focus or how key and action interact when both are supplied.
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?
A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler. It is lean to the point of terseness, but every word earns its place.
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?
The tool sits in a large family of input tools (game_key_hold, game_key_release, game_click, game_gamepad, game_input_action) with no annotations and no output schema, yet the definition offers no routing, no prerequisites, and no success/failure semantics. The lack of required parameters plus the undefined key-vs-action relationship leaves an agent guessing at the valid call shape.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description's 'key press or input action' adds a small amount of meaning by framing key and action as alternatives, but it doesn't specify mutual exclusivity or precedence between them.
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 names a specific verb ('Send'), resource ('key press or input action'), and target ('running game'), making the core function clear in one clause. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like game_click or game_mouse_move through the 'key press' wording, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from game_key_hold or game_key_release.
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?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over the closely related siblings game_key_hold, game_key_release, game_click, or game_gamepad. The phrase 'to the running game' implies a context, but the description never states the discrete-tap scenario it fits or when a sibling is the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.