Retrieve saved GUI receipt data plus screenshot and backup paths for a native request ID, so you can check prior desktop action results without resubmitting input.
Read persistent typed native GUI receipt and screenshot/backup paths without repeating input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and 'persistent' plus 'without repeating input' add some behavioral context, but permissions, error behavior, and side effects are not described.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no boilerplate or waste. Some jargon ('typed native GUI receipt') makes it less immediately clear, but it remains concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation in the description. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented request_id parameter, the description is only minimally complete and leaves sibling selection and parameter sourcing unclear.
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 required parameter request_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format, source, or relationship to prior calls. 'Without repeating input' hints at reusing a prior request but does not add enough meaning.
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 ('Read') and a fairly specific resource: persistent typed native GUI receipt and screenshot/backup paths. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling status tools such as host_request_status or printer_request_status, and 'without repeating input' is 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The name and description imply it is for checking a native request, but the agent must infer the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.