Send named keys to a tmux pane—like Ctrl-C, Escape, or Enter—to interrupt, navigate, or control processes. Directly triggers the specified key in the target pane.
Send a named key to a pane: C-c (interrupt), C-d, Escape, Enter, Up, Tab ...
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | C-c | |
| pane | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that a key is sent and that C-c can be an interrupt, but does not explain side effects, whether it types into the pane's input, whether it waits, or any safety considerations.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and provides useful examples without wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan.
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 annotations, an incomplete key list, and an unexplained 'pane' parameter, the description is not fully sufficient for an agent to know exactly how to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema helps, but the core usage context is underspecified.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful examples for the 'key' parameter, but the required 'pane' parameter is unexplained—no format, identifier type, or how to reference a pane. The compensation is only partial.
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 uses a specific verb ('Send') with a clear resource ('pane') and object ('named key'), and gives concrete examples (C-c, C-d, Escape, Enter, Up, Tab). This makes the tool's function clear and somewhat distinguishes it from sibling pane_send, though the distinction is implied rather than explicit.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like pane_send or pane_read. The phrase 'named key' implies special-key input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.