Replace the macOS clipboard with specified text, overwriting previous content; read prior clipboard with get_clipboard if needed.
Replace the macOS clipboard with the given text. The previous contents are lost — read them with get_clipboard first if they matter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Text to place on the clipboard. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that previous clipboard contents are lost, which is the most important side effect. It does not mention return behavior, but the lack of an output schema lowers that expectation.
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 compact, purposeful sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the warning about data loss is placed immediately after. No filler or redundancy exists.
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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, this description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it affects, and how to avoid an unwanted side effect. Nothing critical is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds only the generic phrase 'given text' rather than enriching the parameter with format, length, or special considerations, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Replace', names the resource, 'the macOS clipboard', and clarifies the input is text. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_clipboard by being the write counterpart.
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?
It explicitly states when to first call get_clipboard ('if they matter'), providing clear guidance for the main risk scenario. It does not enumerate broader when-to-use/when-not-to-use cases, but for this simple tool the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.