Capture the CoCo3 emulator's screen as a PNG for viewing or debugging, falling back to the newest snapshot if capture fails.
Capture the CoCo screen to snapshots/current.png and return the PNG. Falls back to the newest PNG in the snapshot directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the fallback behavior (returning the newest PNG in the snapshot directory) and implies a non-destructive read, but it omits whether the emulator must be started first, whether current.png is overwritten, and what happens if no snapshot exists at all.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary behavior (capture and return) is front-loaded and the fallback is relegated to a second sentence where it belongs.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description correctly states the return value is the PNG. For a zero-parameter tool this is nearly complete, with only the precondition (emulator running) and no-snapshot-exists case left unspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to document and the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. There is no parameter syntax an agent could get wrong.
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 (Capture) and resource (the CoCo screen) plus the exact output artifact (snapshots/current.png and the returned PNG). No sibling tool in the list performs screen capture, so it is unambiguously distinguishable.
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 purpose — an agent calls it when it needs to see the current emulator screen — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., emulator must be running), and no named alternative or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.