Returns the current desktop screen resolution in pixels.
Return current screen resolution.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "desktop_screen_size"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns screen resolution, without detailing the output format (e.g., pixels, width/height), whether it queries the OS or performs a side effect, or any potential cost. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
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?
A single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter query tool and is front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place.
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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells the agent exactly what the return value is (screen resolution). However, it could be marginally improved by specifying the format or units (e.g., pixels), which would prevent ambiguity, but this is not a critical 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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the description adds no unnecessary param details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('current screen resolution'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like desktop_screenshot, which capture images. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is self-evident for a simple query, there is no mention of scenarios or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that this is the correct tool when the agent needs the display dimensions rather than a screenshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.