beook_screenshotCapture the open exercise page as an image for AI inspection. Page coordinates match image pixels, so you can pass measured positions directly to the click tool.
Take a screenshot of the open exercise page. Image pixels equal page coordinates, so they can be passed to beook_click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Exercise reference; default: the exercise opened last |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a screenshot operation, so the annotation bar is low. The description nonetheless adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: image pixel coordinates map 1:1 to page coordinates, which is essential for correct downstream use. It omits return format (image block vs. path/base64) and what happens when no exercise is open, keeping it below 5.
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, both front-loaded and free of filler. The core action comes first and the coordinate note follows as supporting detail.
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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented, the definition covers the essential gaps, notably the coordinate system of the returned image. Missing only the failure mode (no exercise currently open) and the shape of the returned image.
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?
The single 'ref' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, default = last opened exercise). The description says nothing about 'ref' or about how the screenshot target is scoped, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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: 'Take a screenshot of the open exercise page.' It also names the downstream consumer (beook_click), which links it into the workflow. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other read-oriented siblings like beook_read_exercise, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that pixels can be passed to beook_click sketches a screenshot-then-click workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no comparison against alternatives such as beook_read_exercise or beook_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.