Capture the Filmora editor's current screen and list accessible UI controls with observation IDs, so assistants can inspect state and choose reliable targets for automation.
Return a screenshot plus accessible controls, each with its own observation ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_width | No | ||
| max_elements | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that each control carries its own observation ID, implying those IDs are reused by later action tools — but says nothing about truncation, limits, or whether the call is expensive.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the return payload immediately with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry the missing usage and parameter context.
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 read-only observation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape. It falls short on parameter meaning (both bounds undocumented) and on how this differs from the screenshot/inspect siblings.
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 0% and neither max_width nor max_elements is mentioned in the description, so an agent cannot tell that these bound the screenshot width and the number of returned controls. For a 2-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the description should compensate but does not.
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 names a concrete return payload — a screenshot plus accessible controls with observation IDs — so the agent knows what comes back. However, it does not differentiate this from close siblings like filmora_screenshot and filmora_inspect, which likely return overlapping visual/UI data, leaving the agent to guess which observation tool to call.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With filmora_screenshot, filmora_inspect and filmora_status all present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap for an observation-style tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.