Types Unicode text into a disposable Windows guest via SendInput, supporting up to 16,384 UTF-16 characters without touching the host clipboard.
Type Unicode via guest SendInput, at most 16384 UTF-16 characters; no host clipboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hwnd | No | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: input is injected at the guest level via SendInput, output is bounded to 16384 UTF-16 characters, and the host clipboard is deliberately not used. This is genuinely useful for predicting side effects.
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 dense sentence with the mechanism and the two key constraints front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The clipped telegraphic style is efficient but slightly at the cost of readability.
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 small two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate on mechanism and limits. However, the undocumented hwnd parameter and absent guidance versus sandbox_keys leave a real gap.
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 carry both parameters. It partially covers 'text' with the 16384 UTF-16 character limit, but says nothing about 'hwnd' (default 0), which is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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?
States a specific verb (type), the resource (Unicode text), and the mechanism (guest SendInput), which is more concrete than most sibling names. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sandbox_keys, which likely also produces keystrokes, so it falls short of 5.
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 on when to use this versus sandbox_keys, sandbox_click, or sandbox_exec. The 'no host clipboard' note hints at a distinction but never states the selection condition, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.