Writes text to the device clipboard, optionally verifying via the screen tree that the clipboard change took effect.
Writes text to the device clipboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| verify | No | 复查屏幕树确认变更生效 (default true). | |
| verify_poll_ms | No | 轮询树的时间间隔毫秒 (default 300). | |
| verify_timeout_ms | No | 等待变更生效的超时毫秒 (default 3000). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not mention that verification polling runs by default (verify=true, 300ms, 3000ms timeout), whether existing clipboard contents are overwritten, or any permission/platform constraints.
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 no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a 4-parameter tool with verification logic.
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 annotations, no output schema, and three behavioral parameters that materially change tool behavior (screen-tree verification with polling), the description is too thin to let an agent invoke this tool correctly or predict its effects.
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 75%, below the high-coverage threshold, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. The verify/verify_poll_ms/verify_timeout_ms semantics are only in the schema, and the description never explains that verification behavior is configurable or what polling accomplishes.
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 ('Writes text to the device clipboard'), which is enough to distinguish it from the get_clipboard sibling by direction (write vs. read). It stops short of naming that sibling or describing scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that get_clipboard is the counterpart. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.