Locate every occurrence of an exact, case-sensitive text string on the current mainframe screen, returning all row and column coordinates for each match.
Return all (row, col) coordinates where the literal pattern appears on the current screen.
Args: pattern: Exact text to search for. Case-sensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses meaningful behavioral details: searching is literal and case-sensitive, and it is scoped to the current screen. However, with no annotations, it remains silent on no-match behavior and whether any refresh or waiting occurs.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second documents the argument without repeating schema boilerplate.
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 one-parameter tool, it covers the required argument and the output shape. Its main gaps are the lack of sibling-routing guidance and missing edge-case behavior such as what happens when the pattern is not found.
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 schema only defines pattern as a string, so the description's 'Exact text to search for. Case-sensitive.' adds real semantic value. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and makes the single parameter unambiguous.
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 clear operation: 'Return all (row, col) coordinates where the literal pattern appears on the current screen.' The mention of coordinates and literal pattern gives it a distinct identity among siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 only usage cue is 'current screen,' which implies a direct, non-waiting screen search. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like wait_for_text or get_text_at, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.