Gets or replaces the selected text in the active R7-Office Desktop window, enabling programmatic reading or insertion into the current document.
Get or replace selected text in the currently active R7-Office Desktop editor window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text to paste when action is replace. | |
| action | Yes | Get or replace active selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 not disclose what happens when no window is focused, whether replace requires an existing selection, or any permission/error behavior for this desktop-control tool. 'Replace' implies mutation but nothing about reversibility or side effects is given.
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 wasted words. It could afford one more clause given the preconditions involved, but nothing is padded.
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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool that mutates desktop state, the definition is minimal-viable but incomplete: it omits return shape for 'get', focus prerequisites, and failure modes for 'replace'.
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 the action enum and the text parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.
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 pair (get/replace) and resource (selected text in the active R7-Office Desktop editor window), which is clear and distinguishable from most siblings. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like r7_desktop_exec or r7_replace, so the agent must infer which to use.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'currently active ... window' implies a focus precondition but neither states it as a requirement nor points to alternatives such as r7_desktop_status or r7_replace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.