get_clipboardRead the current clipboard text from a connected Android or iOS device. On Android, set Mobilerun Keyboard as the active IME to retrieve it.
The clipboard's text (Android needs the Mobilerun Keyboard as the active IME).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No |
| 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, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Android requirement for the Mobilerun Keyboard as active IME, but omits other behavioral details such as read-only nature, error conditions when clipboard is empty, or permission needs.
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 very short, front-loads the resource, and includes the Android prerequisite without wasted words. It is a sentence fragment, but structure is efficient for the small amount of content.
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, and the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits any explanation of the optional 'device' parameter and provides no routing to the set_clipboard sibling, leaving gaps for correct 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 sole parameter 'device' has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention it at all. No meaning is added beyond the raw schema type and default, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 names the specific resource returned ('the clipboard's text'), making the tool's purpose clear despite lacking an explicit verb. It adds an Android platform caveat but never contrasts with the sibling set_clipboard, so full sibling differentiation is absent.
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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clipboard or other clipboard-related operations. The Android IME note is a prerequisite, not usage guidance for selection between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.