amiga_pointerGet the mouse pointer position on the front Amiga screen as 'x y' screenshot coordinates, read-only and without sending a picture. Verify cursor location before clicking.
Return where the mouse pointer is on the front screen, as 'x y' in screenshot coordinates. No picture is sent. Read-only.
| 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?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: the result is in screenshot coordinates, no image is returned, and the location is relative to the front screen. It does not cover error cases or screen-unavailable behavior, but it adds meaningful operational detail beyond the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: the return value and scope come first, followed by two short clarifications. Every clause earns its place by specifying the output format, absence of an image, and read-only nature.
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, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return format and coordinate context. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further parameter or return-value documentation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is a 4, and the description does not introduce any contradictory parameter guidance.
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: 'Return where the mouse pointer is on the front screen,' including the 'x y' coordinate format. It also distinguishes itself from screenshot-like tools with 'No picture is sent' and from mutating tools with 'Read-only,' though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.
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 implied by the read-only, no-image positioning of the tool, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings such as amiga_screenshot or amiga_mouse. The agent can infer the purpose, but routing is left to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.