Retrieve detailed information about a named game screen element, including position, size, visibility, and text content. Use screen and element names to examine specific UI objects.
Get detailed info about a named element on a screen (position, size, visibility, text content)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| screen | Yes | Screen name | |
| element | Yes | Element name (h2d.Object.name) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the read-only nature implicitly ('get info') but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the element doesn't exist, throttling, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap, though the read nature is at least implied.
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 with no filler. The parenthetical clearly enumerates the returned fields, keeping the definition tight and informative.
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?
Given a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned reasonably well. However, it omits failure modes (element not found), whether screen must be active, and any connection prerequisites, which an agent would need for reliable invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description mentions the element being 'named' on a screen, reinforcing the schema's element name presence requirement. It does not add syntax or format details beyond schema, so baseline 3–4 applies.
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 (inspect/get detailed info) and resource (named element on a screen), and enumerates what is returned (position, size, visibility, text content). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_element_at (locates by position) or get_screen_state (whole screen).
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 description implies usage by naming the input as 'a named element on a screen', but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternatives guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active connection or that the element must be visible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.