Capture the current mobile screen and return it for analysis, while saving a copy to the system temp directory.
Prend une capture de l'écran actuel et la renvoie pour analyse. Une copie est aussi écrite dans le répertoire temporaire du système.
| 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 disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral trait beyond the obvious action: a copy is written to the system's temporary directory, which is a genuine side effect an agent should know. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as whether an active session is required or what image format is returned.
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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary side effect (temp file write) follows naturally. Every sentence 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what happens and the side effect. Minor gaps remain, such as the return format of the image and whether a session must be active, but these are modest for such a simple operation.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter information.
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 ('Prend une capture' / takes a screenshot), a clear resource (the current screen), and the result (returned for analysis). Among the sibling tools (connect_to_session, get_page_source, type_text, find_elements, etc.), none perform screen capture, so the purpose is unmistakable and naturally differentiated.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, the distinction between get_page_source (DOM structure) and screenshot (visual rendering) is not mentioned, nor is any when-not-to-use condition stated. The reader must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.