Capture a screenshot of only an enrolled desktop window and return it as a PNG in MCP content, without saving it to the audit log.
Capture only the enrolled window, returning a PNG image in MCP content; never saved to the audit log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| action_id | Yes | ||
| native_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the output is a PNG in MCP content and the capture is never written to the audit log, which is exactly the kind of disclosure that isn't in structured fields.
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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and the return/audit facts trailing. No filler.
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?
The return format and audit-log behavior are covered and no output schema is needed, but for a tool with three fully undocumented required parameters the description leaves a real gap an agent must guess around.
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% for three required parameters (task_id, action_id, native_id), and the description does not explain any of them. 'Enrolled window' weakly hints at native_id but gives no meaning for task_id or action_id or how they relate.
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 (Capture) and resource (the enrolled window) plus the return format (PNG in MCP content). It doesn't name or contrast with any sibling tool, so differentiation is left implicit, but the action itself is unambiguous.
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 this tool should be used versus alternatives like desktop_result or desktop_action, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'only' hints at scoping but gives no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.