Read captured JavaScript uncaught errors and unhandled promise rejections from a running Typora instance to debug renderer issues.
Read captured uncaught errors and unhandled promise rejections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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 word 'captured' hints that events must be captured beforehand, adding mild behavioral context, but nothing is said about ordering, pagination, or rate limits.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with filtering and pagination parameters.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description would need to explain return content, but it does not. Combined with undocumented limit/afterSeq pagination behavior and the 33% schema coverage, an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly.
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 only 33%: limit and afterSeq have no schema description and the tool description explains none of the three parameters. With coverage below 50%, the description is expected to compensate for the gaps, and it does not.
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?
Clear specific verb 'Read' plus a well-scoped resource ('captured uncaught errors and unhandled promise rejections'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_console_logs and get_network_requests. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is precise enough to stand apart.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_console_logs or other debug tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no note on exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.