Read exact on-screen text from desktop UI elements while preserving whitespace, enabling AI agents to access visible content for automation and decision-making.
Read exact accessible text, preserving whitespace. Protected fields are unsupported. Maximum 1 MB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| element_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral constraints: exact whitespace preservation, protected fields being unsupported, and a 1 MB maximum. However, it does not explain what happens when a protected field is encountered, whether the call is purely read-only, or how failures surface.
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?
Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and each sentence adds new, useful 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?
Reasonable for a simple read tool: it names the element identifier requirement and size limits. But it omits the return format, does not define 'protected fields', and relies on sibling tools to teach the agent how to discover element_id. Given the absence of a schema output model, these gaps keep it from being fully complete.
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%, and the description does not explain element_id or limit. 'Maximum 1 MB' hints at an overall size cap but does not clarify the units or role of limit. Most parameter meaning is left to the agent to infer from names alone.
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 names a specific action ('Read') and resource ('exact accessible text'), and adds a useful qualifier about preserving whitespace. It is clear enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like desktop_set_text, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 given about when to use this tool versus desktop_inspect, desktop_observe, or desktop_set_text. The agent is left to infer that this is for retrieving text, and must discover element IDs elsewhere without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.