Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esp32-iphone-agent

esp32-iphone-agent

by onehumanbeing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

intent_show

Retrieve a saved intent by name or ID to inspect its prompt, hints, recorded steps, and reference screens.

Instructions

One saved intent: prompt, hints and its recorded steps (0-1000 screen units) with their reference screens.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "intent_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesname or id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the return contents and the coordinate convention (0-1000 screen units) plus reference screens, which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about read-only semantics, error/not-found behavior, or whether names are case-sensitive or ids interchangeable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the identifying scope ('One saved intent') is front-loaded before the payload details. The fragment style is dense but readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must stand in for return values, and it does list the payload fields and coordinate units. For a single-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; only failure modes and the name-vs-id distinction are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting 'name or id'. The description adds no constraints on the identifier beyond restating that it selects one intent, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource precisely — a single saved intent — and enumerates its returned payload (prompt, hints, recorded steps, reference screens). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and never explicitly contrasts with intent_list, but an agent can tell it fetches one saved intent by identifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives; the list/read pair (intent_list) is left for the agent to infer from the word 'One'. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, no mention of what happens if the name is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools