Read text from the computer's clipboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | No | Computer name or id from list_devices. Optional with one computer online or a default set. | |
| workSessionId | No | Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workSessionIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work.",
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the scoping detail that the clipboard content is text, and says nothing about empty-clipboard or format behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding and the resource stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool that can target multiple devices.
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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage, a 100%-covered schema, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note on return format or empty-clipboard handling, which is a minor but 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 100%, and the two parameters (deviceId, workSessionId) are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including the guidance to reuse the same workSessionId per conversation. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Read text from the computer's clipboard'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling write_clipboard. It is unambiguous, though it does not name the sibling explicitly the way a top-tier definition would.
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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or failure conditions. Nothing tells the agent when this read is appropriate versus, say, reading a file or a browser snapshot.
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.