Retrieves text from the Windows 98 clipboard. Fetches copied content from the VM, then unlock the session when finished.
Read text from the Windows 98 clipboard. VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | text | |
| vm_name | Yes | Unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / vm_nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI.",
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._-]{0,63}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "vm_name"
+]v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the VM lock is held by the session after the call and must be released with vm_unlock. This is not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, and the second surfaces the critical lock/unlock behavior. The structure is compact and front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, locking side effect, and follow-up action. There is no output schema, so the return value is only implied by 'Read text'; edge cases like an empty clipboard are not addressed, but this is a minor gap.
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 already documents vm_name with a pattern and reference to WIN98CTL.INI, and format is constrained to 'text' with a default. The description reinforces the textual nature but adds no deeper parameter semantics. Schema coverage is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read text from the Windows 98 clipboard.' It clearly distinguishes this read operation from the sibling clipboard_set and other VM tools. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.
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 gives clear procedural context by noting the VM remains locked and instructing the agent to call vm_unlock when finished. It does not explicitly contrast with clipboard_set or state when not to use it, but the intended context is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.