Extracts the text content of a specific element in an Electron app using a session ID and CSS selector. Enables automated testing to verify and assert displayed UI text.
Get the text content of an element
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| selector | Yes | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the selector must already exist, whether it waits, what is returned for multiple matches, or error behavior on missing elements, so behavioral disclosure is thin.
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 no filler. It is appropriately sized for the heavily truncated information provided, though it is too terse to be useful rather than verbose.
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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage requires the description to explain selector format, timeout semantics, and whether the element must exist. It does none of this.
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% for 3 parameters (sessionId, selector, timeout). The description mentions 'element' but never explains what selector means or what timeout controls, giving no compensation for the documented gap.
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 clear verb+resource (get text content of an element), which is understandable in isolation. However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like get_accessibility_tree or find_accessible_node, and 'content' vs 'text' scope is left ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_accessibility_tree or get_page_info. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.