vtable_cell_stateReads a cell's state to retrieve selection status, checkbox/radio/switch values, and visual signature (fill/stroke) for comparing highlights or color changes before and after actions.
读取单元格状态：是否选中、复选/单选/开关状态值，以及 scenegraph 视觉签名 （fill/stroke 等，可在操作前后对比以断言高亮/颜色变化）。
| 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 readOnlyHint annotation already indicates read-only behavior, and the description adds specific details about what state is read (selection, checkbox state, visual signature). It does not mention potential side effects (though none expected) or error conditions, but the added detail goes beyond the annotation.
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, reasonably concise sentence that states the tool's purpose and gives an example use case. It avoids excessive verbosity while still conveying key information about the returned data.
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 description gives a sense of what is returned (selection, checkbox state, visual signature) but does not detail the output structure. Since an output schema exists (per context), the description could be more specific about the shape of the result, especially the 'scenegraph visual signature' field.
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 zero coverage from the description. Even though col and row are somewhat self-explanatory, tab_id and table_index are ambiguous in the vtable context and are not explained. The description provides no parameter guidance.
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 that this tool reads cell state, including selection, checkbox/radio/switch values, and visual styling (fill/stroke). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vtable_cell_text and vtable_cell_info by focusing on state and visual signature rather than text or general info.
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 includes a usage hint (compare before/after operations to assert highlight/color changes) but does not explicitly specify when to prefer this over related tools like vtable_get_selection or vtable_cell_info. The guidance is implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.