swebsy_read_selectionRead the currently selected component (type, classes, attributes, text). Secrets are never surfaced.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "swebsy_read_selection"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive local operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating 'Secrets are never surfaced' and by enumerating what the read returns, which the annotations do not cover.
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 compact sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded and no wasted clauses. Every phrase carries information.
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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what is read and what fields come back. The secrecy note closes the main remaining 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain or compensate for.
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 (Read) and resource (currently selected component) and enumerates the returned fields (type, classes, attributes, text). It is distinguishable from siblings like swebsy_read_page, though it does not explicitly name the alternative it differs from.
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 phrase 'currently selected' implies the precondition that something must be selected, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it names no alternatives and does not say what happens when nothing is selected, leaving usage largely inferable.
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.