Retrieve the last copied text, optionally filtered by device or to clips from another paired machine, so you can access what you just copied elsewhere.
Get the most recently copied text, optionally only from another device ("what I just copied on my other machine").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | Only consider clips from the device with this name | |
| from_other_device | No | Only consider clips copied on another device of the ferry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about the safety/scope profile. It does not say what happens when no clip exists, whether 'most recent' is scoped to the current device by default, whether results are sync-fresh, or what the return shape is.
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 the core action first, followed by a short illustrative parenthetical that earns its place by anchoring a real use case. No filler or repetition.
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 read tool with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, this covers the essentials of what it does. It is still thin on failure/empty behavior and on how device and from_other_device interact when both are supplied, which matters since there are no annotations to fall back on.
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 already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does slightly reinforce the intent by framing from_other_device as 'optionally only from another device,' but adds no distinction between using the device name filter versus the boolean flag.
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: 'Get the most recently copied text,' which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not name the sibling it differs from, but 'most recently' plus the optional-device scoping is enough to distinguish it from list_recent_clips and search_clips without opening a schema.
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 quoted scenario ("what I just copied on my other machine") implies when to reach for it, giving a concrete user intent. However, it never states when NOT to use it or that list_recent_clips/search_clips are the alternatives for browsing or querying, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.