Triggers an explicit Ctrl+C to copy selected content to the system clipboard without reading or inspecting clipboard contents. Use it for human-style copy actions in Windows applications.
Explicit Ctrl+C using the system clipboard; contents never inspected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hwnd | Yes | ||
| pause_policy | No | ||
| threshold_px | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and not read-only; the description adds genuinely new context with 'contents never inspected,' a privacy trait nothing else states. However, it never reconciles the surprising destructiveHint for a copy (that the system clipboard gets overwritten?) nor explains what the target window must be.
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the key behavioral caveat is front-loaded. It is efficient to the point of under-specification, but that shortfall is penalized elsewhere rather than here.
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 tool with a nested seven-field policy object, a patterned window handle, no output schema, and no doc coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot construct a correct call beyond guessing defaults for pause_policy and threshold_px.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The required hwnd (a window handle as a decimal string) and the seven-field pause_policy object (stable_ms, window_ms, lifetime_ms, sustained_ms, large_path_px, large_range_px, small_excursion_px) are entirely opaque to the agent.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('Explicit Ctrl+C using the system clipboard'), which is concretely distinguishable from human_cut/human_paste siblings by the keystroke it emulates. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the cut/copy/paste split.
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 statement of when to call this versus human_cut, human_paste, or human_input_plan, and no prerequisites such as needing the target window focused. The word 'Explicit' hints at a contrast but never names it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.