vtable_cell_infoReads a table cell's value, type, and geometry, then converts them to absolute viewport center coordinates for use with action_chain move_to.
读取单元格的值/类型/几何信息，并换算出页面视口绝对中心点坐标 （该坐标可直接用于 action_chain 的 move_to）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| col | Yes | ||
| row | Yes | ||
| tab_id | No | ||
| table_index | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by mentioning the coordinate calculation (换算出页面视口绝对中心点坐标). It is consistent with readOnlyHint (读取) and does not contradict annotations. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects or limitations, so it is not a perfect score.
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, compact sentence that packs the purpose and a practical usage note without any redundant fluff. It is well structured and easy to parse, achieving high information density with minimal words.
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 an output schema (not shown), the description gives a useful high-level summary of the return content (value, type, geometry, and coordinates) without specifying the exact structure. It covers the main purpose and a practical application, but omits details like error cases or return format specifics, which are partially mitigated by the existence of an output schema.
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 has 4 parameters (col, row, tab_id, table_index) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about any of them. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters, but it is entirely silent on this, leaving users to infer meanings from bare names.
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 reads cell value/type/geometry information and calculates the absolute center point coordinates for the viewport, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It also ties the output to a concrete use case (action_chain move_to), making the intent highly understandable.
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 provides a usage hint by noting the coordinate can be directly used for action_chain's move_to, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like vtable_resolve_cell or vtable_find_cell. It gives a usage context, not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.