Read the current Windows clipboard content for desktop automation. Use it to capture copied text or data before pasting or processing it in automated workflows.
Windows AutoIt clipGet. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bufSize | No | Buffer size for clipboard content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop, which tells the agent the call will fail in headless or untrusted contexts. It stops short of stating the return format or what happens if the clipboard is empty.
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 short sentences with no filler and the key constraint (environment requirements) placed up front. It is efficient, though the opening clause spends words restating the tool name instead of describing the action.
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 output schema, the description should say what the tool returns (the clipboard text as a string) and note relevant failure modes, but it does not. The environment prerequisites are covered and the single parameter is fully documented by the schema, so the definition is adequate but leaves the return value 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?
There is a single optional parameter (bufSize) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the buffer size semantics. The description adds nothing about bufSize, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('Windows AutoIt clipGet') rather than an articulation of what it does, so an agent must infer from the name alone that it retrieves clipboard contents. It names no verb+resource pair and does not distinguish itself from the sibling clipPut, which also operates on the clipboard.
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?
The only guidance is a set of environment preconditions ('trusted owner', 'interactive Windows x64 desktop'), which is useful but is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of when to prefer clipGet over clipPut or any alternate tool, and no exclusions for non-Windows or headless contexts beyond the bare mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.