Retrieve the current 3270 terminal screen with row numbers (24x80) to inspect mainframe display content directly.
Return the current 3270 screen, row-numbered (24 rows x 80 cols).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that this is a read operation returning the current screen and discloses the row-numbered 24x80 format. However, it does not mention whether the call waits for screen stability, how connection failures are handled, or whether the snapshot is immediate.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, object, and output format efficiently, earning its place entirely.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema, so the return shape is covered. However, given the large sibling set of screen-related tools, the absence of any guidance on when to choose get_screen over alternatives leaves the description slightly incomplete for correct tool selection.
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 has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them (empty properties). The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Nothing is left undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('current 3270 screen'), and specifies the format ('row-numbered, 24 rows x 80 cols'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling screen tools like find_text or get_text_at, which operate on content rather than returning the full screen.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_screen_change, identify_screen, or get_text_at. The description implies it is for retrieving the full current screen, but it does not state exclusions or recommend sibling tools for other screen-related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.