Input text into the currently focused element on a Linux desktop. Requires the active application to be allowlisted for security.
Type text into whatever currently has keyboard focus. The frontmost application must be in the session allowlist at the time of this call, or this tool returns an error and does nothing. Newlines are supported. For keyboard shortcuts use key instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to type. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the condition about the allowlist, support for newlines, and what happens (returns error) if the app is not allowed. However, it doesn't specify what occurs if no keyboard focus exists, which is a minor gap.
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?
Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, condition, and alternative. No wasted words, front-loaded with core action.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers functional behavior, error handling, and alternative tool usage. It is complete given the tool's simplicity and the context of sibling tools.
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% (single parameter 'text' described in the schema). The description adds only the note that 'Newlines are supported,' which provides marginal extra value beyond the schema's 'Text to type.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states 'Type text into whatever currently has keyboard focus,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'key' used for keyboard shortcuts.
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 description provides clear when-to-use guidance: the frontmost application must be in the session allowlist, and it explicitly directs 'For keyboard shortcuts use `key` instead,' naming the alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.