Locate accessible nodes in an Electron app's accessibility tree by role or name. Use for automated testing to locate and interact with specific UI elements.
Find accessible nodes by role and/or name using the accessibility tree
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| role | No | ||
| exact | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what the return shape is (single node vs. list), or how the default limit of 1 and exact matching affect results. Only the lookup mechanism is disclosed.
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 tight sentence with the action and lookup keys front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and five parameters with no schema descriptions means the description should be doing far more work than it is. An agent lacks the matching semantics, result shape, and safety profile needed to call this confidently.
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 5 parameters, and the description only accounts for 'role' and 'name'. It explains nothing about 'exact' (matching semantics), 'limit' (result count, capped at 10, default 1), or 'sessionId', leaving the majority of parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (accessible nodes), plus the mechanism (accessibility tree) and the search keys (role and/or name). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_accessibility_tree or get_accessibility_snapshot, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which accessibility tool to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite several sibling tools operating on the same accessibility tree. The agent must infer that this is the query-by-role/name path rather than the full-tree dump.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.