amiga_textReads Zenix console output as text lines, letting agents inspect the screen without capturing an image; read-only and only works on Zenix, not AmigaOS.
Zenix only (not AmigaOS): return the text on a Zenix console as lines, so the screen can be read without a picture. On AmigaOS it fails: use amiga_screenshot. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| console | No | console 1-10 (default: the one shown) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with them. What the description genuinely adds is the platform constraint and the failure behavior on AmigaOS, which is not encoded anywhere in the annotations. It stops short of describing return shape details such as line count or handling of an empty console.
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, front-loaded with the platform scope and the core capability, then the fallback. No filler; the parenthetical '(not AmigaOS)' and the fallback clause both earn their place as routing 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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description covers purpose, platform gating, fallback, and output format (lines of text). Only minor edge cases (empty console, whether non-visible consoles can be read) are left unstated.
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 is one optional parameter and the schema already documents it fully ('console 1-10 (default: the one shown)'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the console argument, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('return the text on a Zenix console as lines') plus the reason ('so the screen can be read without a picture'), which immediately separates it from the screenshot siblings. An agent knows exactly what it gets back: text lines rather than an image.
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?
Gives an explicit platform precondition ('Zenix only (not AmigaOS)'), states the failure mode ('On AmigaOS it fails'), and names the correct alternative ('use amiga_screenshot'). This is a complete when/when-not/alternative routing rule, which is exactly what the sibling list of 29 tools demands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.