Retrieves every screen reader message programs sent during a session, one line each, including GTK and browser live region output for accessibility testing.
Everything programs have announced to a screen reader in the session, a line each, "polite: Saved": GTK's announcements, a browser's live regions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Its name, from start_session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output context: one line per announcement, example format ("polite: Saved"), and source systems (GTK, browser live regions). It does not describe ordering, time range, or whether announcements accumulate, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 that is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. The core idea ('Everything programs have announced...') is front-loaded, though the embedded example and colon make it slightly clunky.
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 read-only, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned, its line-based format, and example content. Minor gaps around time scope and ordering are acceptable given the simplicity and annotation coverage.
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 100%, with the session parameter documented as 'Its name, from start_session'. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully handles parameter documentation.
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 states the resource precisely: screen-reader announcements from all programs in the session. It distinguishes itself from siblings like program_output or accessible_tree through the specific medium (screen reader) and example formats such as "polite: Saved". No explicit verb is used, but the meaning is clear.
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 description explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use conditions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.