Capture a screenshot of a Kasm session. Provide save_to_file to write a JPEG file, or receive base64 image data.
Capture a screenshot of a session. Pass save_to_file to write a JPEG; otherwise returns base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| kasm_id | Yes | ||
| save_to_file | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output behavior (base64 vs JPEG file) and the side effect of writing a file when save_to_file is set. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file size, permissions, or whether the screenshot captures the current state or has any delay. It also doesn't state if the session must be running. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the output mode. Every word earns its place. It is concise and structured effectively.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain width, height, or kasm_id semantics, nor does it describe the return format beyond 'base64'. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or error conditions. For a tool that captures screenshots, an agent would need more context on dimensions and session state.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains save_to_file, leaving width, height, and kasm_id undocumented. The description adds meaning for save_to_file but not for the other parameters. Since there are 4 parameters and only one is explained, the description is insufficient for parameter semantics.
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 the tool's function: capturing a screenshot of a session. It specifies the output format (base64 or JPEG file), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage sessions or execute commands. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other potential screenshot tools, but among the listed siblings, it is unique.
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 implies usage: call this when you need a screenshot of a session. It mentions the save_to_file option, which guides when to use file output vs base64. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as when to use get_session_status instead, or any prerequisites like the session being active. The context is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.