Create or replace a Kindle dashboard screen by positioning widgets on a normalized 1000x1000 coordinate canvas.
Create or replace a screen. Region coordinates use a normalized 1000x1000 canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| screen | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the mutation ('Create or replace') and adds a useful coordinate-system constraint ('normalized 1000x1000 canvas'), but it does not explain what 'replace' destroys (e.g., existing regions) or any side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, both substantive, with the core operation front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and an opaque nested parameter, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what a valid screen object looks like, how replacement is identified, or how this relates to update_region/push_updates.
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 only parameter, screen, is an opaque object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema coverage. The description contributes one meaningful hint about region coordinates, but it does not describe the screen object's fields, required identifiers, or how replacement is keyed.
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 opens with a concrete operation and resource: 'Create or replace a screen.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from region-level operations like update_region and activate_screen, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 guidance is given on when to choose upsert_screen over siblings such as update_region or push_updates. The description does not state prerequisites, intended call context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.