record_findingRecord an item found during device inspection by quoting text exactly as it appears on the current screen. Preserve verbatim quotes to log findings accurately.
Record one item you found. quote must be copied exactly from the CURRENT screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | ||
| quote | Yes | ||
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one useful behavioral constraint: the quote must be copied exactly from the CURRENT screen, which tells the agent how to source that argument. However, it does not disclose what recording does (e.g., session logging vs. side effects), how the exact-match requirement is enforced, or any device-related behavior — partial coverage at best.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical quote-copying constraint follows immediately; 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?
The output schema covers return values, but the tool has three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no explanation of what constitutes an 'item', when recording is warranted, or what 'device' controls. An agent would be guessing on half the input contract, making this incomplete for a tool with this little structured 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, but it only adds meaning to 'quote' (exact copy from current screen). 'item' is glossed merely as 'the item you found' with no definition of what qualifies, and 'device' is never mentioned at all, leaving its purpose entirely to inference.
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 ('record') and resource ('item you found'), and this clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set, which is entirely UI interaction, screenshot, and app management tools — no other sibling records findings. It falls short of 5 because 'item' is never defined, leaving the scope of what counts as a finding ambiguous.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives — no exclusions, no named alternatives, no conditions for skipping. 'Record one item you found' merely restates the purpose with an implied trigger; the only hint of a prerequisite (a 'CURRENT screen' must exist) is buried in a parameter constraint rather than framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.