Returns the node currently focused by the user, including its ID and how long it has been selected (since_ms), or null if no selection. Keeps AI aware of what the person is viewing between tasks.
사람이 지금 선택(focus)한 노드 ([5-C]) — id 와 얼마나 됐는지(since_ms).
선택이 없으면 null. AI 가 작업 사이에 "사람이 지금 뭘 보나"를 아는 통로다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, the null case when there is no selection, and the observational nature of the tool. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'channel to know what the person is seeing' strongly implies it.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core return value is front-loaded, followed by the null behavior and the usage context. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, what null means, and when the tool is useful. No critical information is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter meaning. No additional param description is needed; baseline 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?
The description clearly states what the tool returns: the node currently selected/focused by the human, with id and since_ms. It is specific and not tautological, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_selection_history or get_view_state.
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 gives a clear usage context: it is the channel for the AI to know what the person is looking at between tasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.