Read the exact text currently rendered in a visible Windows terminal window by process ID using the Console API, not screenshots, to inspect what the user sees.
Read exactly what is currently rendered on screen in a visible terminal window, via the real Windows Console API (not a screenshot) — the same thing the user sees if they look at that window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Process id returned by vterm_spawn |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 valuable work by clarifying this reads the console buffer rather than capturing pixels. However, it omits key behavior an agent needs: whether the window must be foregrounded/visible for the read to succeed, what happens for an invalid or closed pid, and whether only the viewport (not scrollback) is returned.
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?
One sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Read exactly what is currently rendered') and the parenthetical qualifiers each eliminating a plausible misinterpretation (screenshot, other windows). Nothing is padded or repeated.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers what is read and from where, but with no output schema it should say more about the returned shape (plain rendered text? whitespace/ANSI preserved? viewport-only vs scrollback) and about failure modes. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.
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 the single pid parameter is already documented as 'Process id returned by vterm_spawn', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is exactly the baseline 3 case for high coverage.
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 precise verb+resource ('read exactly what is currently rendered on screen') plus the mechanism ('real Windows Console API, not a screenshot'), which makes the operation unmistakable. It never names vterm_spawn/vterm_send/vterm_close, so routing is inferred from the operation described rather than explicitly stated.
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 never says when to call this versus waiting, re-sending input, or checking a different window; only the phrase 'in a visible terminal window' hints at a precondition. An agent must derive the usage pattern (e.g. read after vterm_send to verify output) entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.