Extract text from a screenshot or existing image file using Tesseract OCR. Provide an image path, or leave empty to capture and read the current screen.
Szoveg kinyerese a kepernyorol (vagy egy kepfajlbol) tesseract OCR-rel.
Args: params (OcrInput): image_path, lang. Returns: str: A felismert szoveg.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the Tesseract OCR detail and the dual screen/file source, but it does not mention that an empty image_path triggers a screenshot; that behavior appears only in the schema.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with its core purpose, followed by a minimal Args/Returns stub. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices useful guidance for brevity.
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 OCR tool, the description conveys the main operation and return type. However, it lacks routing guidance and leaves the agent to discover key behavior like the screenshot fallback from the schema, so it is only minimally 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?
The description merely lists parameter names ('image_path, lang') without explaining their meaning, defaults, or the null-image_path behavior. Context reports 0% schema description coverage at the top level, and the description does not compensate for that gap.
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 clear action and resource: extract text from the screen or an image file using Tesseract OCR. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like `screenshot` or `read_file`.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no exclusions or conditions. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer `desktop_ocr` over `screenshot` for screen content or `read_file` for image files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.