Inspect the in-process clipboard to check its size, cut state, source slide, and shape payloads before pasting or editing content.
Inspect the in-process clipboard (size, is_cut, source slide, shape payloads).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a genuinely useful scoping fact, "in-process" (as opposed to an OS-level clipboard), and enumerates the reported fields, but says nothing about behavior when the clipboard is empty or errors, and only implies non-mutation via "inspect".
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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and a compact parenthetical listing the returned fields. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (size, is_cut, source slide, shape payloads), which substitutes for the missing output schema. Only the empty-clipboard / error behavior is left unspecified.
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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not need to compensate for a schema 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 specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("the in-process clipboard") plus the fields it surfaces (size, is_cut, source slide, shape payloads). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling clipboard.clear, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., before document.paste or document.paste_slide to verify clipboard contents), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only inferable from the word "inspect".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.