Read captured console events from Typora to debug renderer issues, with optional level filters and afterSeq to fetch only new logs.
Read captured console events, optionally only those after a previous sequence number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| levels | No | ||
| afterSeq | No | ||
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the filter-by-sequence-number behavior, which is parameter-level rather than behavioral context; it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or capture prerequisites.
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 filler, appropriately sized for a simple read tool. It could be slightly richer given the tool's four parameters, but every word 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?
With no output schema, four parameters at low description coverage, and no disclosure of capture prerequisites or level semantics, the description leaves an agent under-informed. It does not explain how logs are captured, what levels mean, or how afterSeq and limit interact.
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 25% – only targetId is documented. The description hints at afterSeq ('after a previous sequence number') but never names it, and gives no meaning for levels or limit, so it compensates only partially for the low schema coverage.
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 ('captured console events'), and notes optional filtering by a previous sequence number. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_javascript_errors or get_network_requests, leaving the agent to infer the scope.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are provided. The description only describes what the tool returns, not when to choose it over sibling tools such as get_javascript_errors or get_network_requests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.