Press a key combination.
modifiers bitmask: LCtrl=1, LShift=2, LAlt=4, LWin=8
Common keycodes: Enter=40, Escape=41, Tab=43, Space=44,
F4=61, PageDown=78, PageUp=75, Win=227
Examples:
Alt+F4 → key(4, [61])
Ctrl+W → key(1, [26])
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keycodes | Yes | ||
| modifiers | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description explains parameter encoding (bitmask, keycodes) but does not disclose behavior such as whether keys are pressed and released, duration, or any side effects. This leaves important behavioral gaps for an agent.
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 highly concise: a one-line purpose, a clear bitmask definition, a list of common keycodes, and two examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 description covers parameter usage well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., key press and release timing). Output schema exists but is not detailed in context. For a simple keyboard shortcut tool, it is mostly complete but missing execution semantics.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the modifiers bitmask, providing common keycode examples, and showing usage in examples. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the integer type in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool presses a key combination and provides examples (Alt+F4, Ctrl+W). It distinguishes from sibling tools like click or type_text by specifying keyboard shortcuts, though it could explicitly contrast with type_text.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives examples but no explicit context for when to prefer key over type_text or other input tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: clicks, screenshots (raw, corrected, calibration aids), keyboard input, mouse movement, scrolling, and corner calibration. There is no ambiguity between tools.
Tool names mix conventions: some are single verbs (click, scroll, key), some are verb_noun (move_mouse, set_corners, type_text), and some are longer phrases (take_screenshot_with_crosshair). Although readable, the inconsistency is notable.
With 12 tools, the server covers all essential interactions for camera-based screen control without being bloated or sparse. Each tool has a clear role.
The tool set covers clicking, typing, key combinations, mouse movement, scrolling, and multiple screenshot modes including calibration aids. Missing drag/swipe functionality is a minor gap.