Replace the clipboard text in a Windows 98 VM with the requested text. The VM stays locked until vm_unlock is called.
Replace Windows 98 clipboard text. VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "text"
-]New value: +[
+ "text",
+ "vm_name"
+]v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by flagging that the VM stays locked by the session and that vm_unlock is required afterward. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.
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 short sentences deliver the core action and the critical follow-up instruction without wasted words. The primary purpose is 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the lock-related follow-up. It could mention whether a prior lock is required, but the existing wording is sufficient for safe invocation.
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 action 'Replace Windows 98 clipboard text' makes it clear that the text parameter is the new clipboard content. The vm_name parameter is fully described in the schema, so the two parameters are effectively understandable.
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 action and resource: replace Windows 98 clipboard text. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling clipboard_get and other VM/input tools.
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 concrete operational context: the VM remains locked after the call and vm_unlock should be called when finished. It does not explicitly list when to avoid this tool, but the lock/unlock sequencing is clear and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.