Capture and save oscilloscope screenshots to a local file in PNG, BMP, or JPG format, returning the file path and size without inlining the image.
Capture the oscilloscope screen and save it to a local file.
image_format: PNG|BMP|JPG. Returns the file path and size; the image itself is not inlined.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | ||
| image_format | No | PNG |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the image is written to a local file and that only the path and size are returned, but omits permission requirements, overwrite behavior when filename repeats, and where 'local' resolves to.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return-shape caveat appended. No filler, though the format string is slightly cramped onto its own line.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a capture-and-save tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented filename default, the description does not fully close the gap on save location and filename resolution.
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%, so the description must compensate; it documents the accepted image_format values (PNG|BMP|JPG), which the schema does not enumerate. However, the filename parameter is entirely unaddressed — notably what happens when it is omitted given its null default.
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+resource (capture the oscilloscope screen, save to local file) and clarifies the output artifact is a file path/size rather than inlined data. This implicitly separates it from the sibling get_screenshot_data, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 note that 'the image itself is not inlined' hints at the file-vs-data alternative, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative is given. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.