Clears captured debug events for a specific renderer or all renderers without resetting sequence numbers, so you can reset debug output while preserving event order.
Clear captured debug events for one renderer or all renderers without resetting sequence numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetId | No | Renderer targetId from typora_status; required when no single window is focused |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: sequence numbers are NOT reset, which tells the agent that this is a partial purge rather than a full state reset.
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 filler that carries the action, both scopes, and the key non-reset caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema description coverage and annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile, little more is required. The remaining omission is any statement about auth or capture-session preconditions, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: omitting targetId clears all renderers while supplying it targets one. This clarifies the otherwise opaque optional-parameter semantics beyond the schema's own note.
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 states a specific verb (clear) and resource (captured debug events), plus the scope (one renderer or all renderers). No sibling tool performs a similar clearing operation, so no explicit sibling differentiation is needed; the one gap is that it doesn't note the parent system being modified.
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?
It implies usage by explaining the two scopes (single renderer vs all renderers), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., whether a capture session must be active). The agent must infer the appropriate calling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.