Find matching DOM elements in a running Typora renderer by CSS selector; get concise, serializable summaries for inspection or debugging.
List concise, serializable summaries for elements matching a CSS selector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| selector | Yes | CSS selector evaluated in the selected Typora renderer | |
| 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 useful context that results are 'concise, serializable summaries' rather than full nodes, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the targetId/focus requirement that the schema hints at.
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 wasted words, though its brevity comes partly from omitting usage and behavioral detail rather than from tight editing.
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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it only gestures at the shape ('concise, serializable summaries'). For a read-only query tool that is minimally adequate, but the return structure and result-limiting behavior remain underspecified.
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 67%, and the description only restates the CSS-selector concept already documented in the schema. It adds no meaning for limit (default 50, max 500) or the targetId focus requirement, so it neither compensates for the gap nor extends what is there.
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 (List) and resource (summaries for elements matching a CSS selector), and 'concise, serializable summaries' implicitly distinguishes it from raw-DOM siblings like get_dom and single-element get_element. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite several overlapping siblings (get_dom, get_element, typora_snapshot). The selector-matching phrasing hints at the use case but leaves selection between tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.