Capture the current screen and return the actual image. View live Android device state directly with this read-only action, no approval or goal needed.
Take a screenshot of the current screen and return the actual image -- never gated (read-only), no goal needed, no candidates to narrow.
| 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 full burden. It clearly discloses read-only nature, no gating, no prerequisites, and that the actual image is returned. It could mention edge cases like unavailable screens, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.
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?
Single compact sentence front-loads the core action and return value, then uses short clauses to add gating and read-only context. Every clause earns its place.
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 parameterless screenshot tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its safety profile, and prerequisites. The only omission is output format or failure behavior, but 'actual image' sufficiently sets expectations.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not document args. It usefully reinforces that no goal or candidate narrowing is required, confirming the parameterless call is complete.
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 and resource: takes a screenshot of the current screen and returns the actual image. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is never gated, read-only, and needs no goal or candidate narrowing.
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?
Explicitly signals when it applies: whenever a current-screen image is needed, without a goal or candidate selection. The sibling contrast is implied but not named, and there is no explicit exclusion like 'use X instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.