Search text across clipboard history on all paired devices to find previously copied content. Specify a query and limit results to retrieve clips from Mac and Windows.
Search the clipboard history of all the user's devices for text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many clips to return, 1-50 (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Text to look for in the clipboard history |
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. It does add useful behavioral context — that the search spans all of the user's devices and targets text rather than metadata — but it says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy), permission/auth requirements, or result ordering. It conveys a read-only, non-destructive character only by implication of 'search'.
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 sentence with no filler, with the resource and cross-device scope front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers what it searches and where. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks matching semantics and any hint about result shape or ordering, which the description could have supplied in a clause.
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 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify matching behavior for 'query' or how limit interacts with ordering. Baseline 3 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 ('search') and resource ('clipboard history') plus a scope ('all the user's devices') and content type ('text'). This differentiates it reasonably from list_recent_clips and get_latest_clip, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word 'search' plus the cross-device scope suggests it is the tool for query-driven lookup rather than browsing recent items. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer list_recent_clips or get_latest_clip instead, and no prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.