List defined screen regions with their geometry and masks to review active monitoring areas.
The regions currently defined, with their geometry and masks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates what data is included (geometry and masks) and implies a non-mutating list operation, but it does not state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or whether the list is live/snapshot. This is adequate but not rich, matching the 'minimal viable' level.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core subject ('regions currently defined') and appends the relevant detail about geometry and masks with no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and the included contents. It does not specify the exact return structure or mask representation, but the absence of params and output schema keeps the complexity low enough that this is only a minor gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is inherently complete and there is little for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 clearly identifies the resource (currently defined regions) and the information returned (geometry and masks), making the tool's purpose understandable. The tool name supplies the 'list' verb, and the resource differentiates it from sibling actions like define_region, remove_region, and pick_region. It stops short of a 5 because the description itself is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned. However, the read-only listing nature is implied by 'currently defined,' which makes it reasonable for an agent to use this when it needs an overview of existing regions. This qualifies as implied usage rather than fully absent guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.