Read the latest input event, such as a home tap or button press, from the CYD desktop without clearing it, so you can inspect the most recent touch or key action.
Machine-specific (cyd). Observation, L0. Read the most recent input event, such as tap.home or tap., without clearing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads without clearing, which is a key behavioral trait, and notes it is machine-specific ('cyd'). However, it does not specify the return format, error behavior, or any side effects beyond not clearing, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the prefixed jargon 'Machine-specific (cyd). Observation, L0.' is not explained and could be confusing to an agent, slightly reducing clarity.
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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior and provides examples. The main gap is the lack of details about the return structure, which an agent might need to correctly interpret the output. Overall, it is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'most recent input event', with concrete examples ('tap.home or tap.<button id>'). It also distinguishes itself from cyd_input_clear by noting 'without clearing it', making the tool's function unmistakable.
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?
Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The phrase 'without clearing it' hints that cyd_input_clear is the alternative for clearing, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus cyd_input_state or other siblings. No direct condition or recommendation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.