minimax_find_textFind text elements in the MiniMax Code interface and return their coordinates, using CDP DOM with OCR fallback. Read-only, supports exact, prefix, and contains matching.
在界面中查找文本元素并返回坐标(优先CDP DOM，自动回退OCR)。只读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | contains | |
| text | Yes | 匹配文本 | |
| index | No | ||
| query | No | 匹配文本别名 (同 text) | |
| region | No | ||
| refresh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description still adds real value beyond them: the DOM-first/OCR-fallback resolution order tells the agent results may come from two different sources with different reliability, and that coordinates are returned. It does not mention what happens when no match is found or how multiple matches are ordered.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and the return value, with the mechanism in parentheses and the read-only marker last. No filler, though the telegraphic style leaves no room for the parameter guidance that is missing.
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 6-parameter tool with a nested region object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and the fact that coordinates are returned, which is the minimum an agent needs to call it at all. The parameter surface and no-match behavior remain unexplained, leaving clear gaps.
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% across 6 parameters including a nested region object, and the description explains none of them: the mode enum (contains/exact/prefix), index for disambiguating multiple matches, region scoping, or refresh are all left undocumented. It also does not clarify the text/query aliasing, which is the kind of thing a description should disambiguate.
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 and resource (find text elements in the UI) and adds the return value (coordinates) plus the resolution mechanism (CDP DOM first, OCR fallback). It does not name the closely related sibling minimax_click_text, so an agent must infer the locate-vs-click split itself.
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 trailing '只读' implies this is the locate-only step rather than the clicking step, which is useful context against minimax_click_text, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'then call click_text with these coordinates' routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.