Read a Windows target window's identity, client geometry, focus, foreground, DPI, and cursor state to inspect it without capturing images or changing focus.
Read native target identity, client geometry, focus, foreground, DPI and cursor. Does not capture images, focus a window, or cancel reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hwnd | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that it has no side effects ('does not focus a window'), but it does not explain the surprising idempotentHint=false for a pure read, nor anything about cost or rate of polling.
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 tightly packed sentences with the capability list first and the exclusions second; no filler and every clause carries information.
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?
A one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, the undefined 'hwnd' input and unclear semantics of the returned identity/geometry data leave the agent guessing on the one thing it must supply.
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% — the single required 'hwnd' parameter has only a regex pattern and no prose. The description never explains what the handle identifies or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap on the one parameter that matters.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Read') followed by an enumerated set of resources: native target identity, client geometry, focus, foreground, DPI and cursor. The negative clause carves it away from screenshot, activation and reading tools, though 'native target identity' remains domain jargon an agent must interpret.
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?
Explicitly states three things it does not do (capture images, focus a window, cancel reading), which steers the agent toward human_activate or reading_cancel for those needs. It stops short of a positive 'use this when you need X' statement or naming the alternative siblings directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.