Retrieve the current clipboard content from an Android device or emulator to access copied text.
Get the current device clipboard content
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": "get_clipboard"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states a read operation ('get') without mentioning potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the clipboard is empty or inaccessible. This lacks the depth expected for a tool with no annotation support.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information is present, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 parameterless getter, the description is largely sufficient: it states the core function. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves some uncertainty about the exact return format and edge cases (e.g., empty clipboard), making it slightly incomplete compared to a fully specified tool.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information.
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 action 'Get' and the resource 'device clipboard content'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_clipboard and other getters (e.g., get_screen_size) by specifying the unique clipboard resource.
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 intended usage is implied: use when you need the clipboard content. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description provides no context about formatting, permission needs, or when clipboard access might be restricted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.