Manage Raycast clipboard history: show entries, clear it, copy text, or paste an indexed item. Enables AI assistants to control clipboard actions through Raycast.
Manage clipboard history via Raycast
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text to copy (for copy action) | |
| index | No | Clipboard history index to paste (for paste action) | |
| action | Yes | Clipboard action to perform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to meet it. It never warns that 'clear' wipes clipboard history (a destructive, likely irreversible action), nor explains what 'show' returns, whether auth/permissions are needed, or how 'paste' interacts with the active application.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the four-action surface it fronts.
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 tool with four distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent still cannot tell whether 'clear' is destructive, what 'show' returns, or what happens if 'index' is out of range — all decisions this description should support.
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 100% and each parameter (text, index, action enum) is documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about valid index ranges, text length limits, or how the index relates to the history returned by 'show'.
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 gives a clear verb ('manage') and resource ('clipboard history') and the Raycast qualifier distinguishes it from the other raycast_* siblings, none of which touch the clipboard. However, 'manage' is broad enough that the actual capability set (show/clear/copy/paste) is only revealed by the schema, not the description.
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 tool versus siblings like raycast_search, which could plausibly also access clipboard content. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.