Fetch a screenshot by filename or Unix timestamp to return redacted screen text, enabling local AI context without exposing image paths.
Fetch one screenshot by filename or unix timestamp. Returns redacted screen text. The image file path is not included. Screenshots use adaptive TTL (important frames kept longer, capped).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | ||
| timestamp | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose behavior: the return is redacted screen text, the image file path is deliberately omitted, and screenshots follow an adaptive TTL with a cap. It does not cover auth requirements or what happens when neither identifier resolves.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the identifier mechanism followed by return-content caveats and the TTL note. No filler, though the TTL sentence is somewhat tangential to the core invocation decision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description adds useful return-content and TTL context. It remains incomplete for a 2-param, no-annotation, no-required-param tool because it never addresses the ambiguous empty-default case or failure behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does name both parameters and their meaning (filename string, unix timestamp). However it omits that both are optional with empty/zero defaults and says nothing about precedence or format expectations for the timestamp.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (one screenshot) and the identifier options (filename or unix timestamp). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_screenshots_tool, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative tools named. The only implied usage is 'you have a filename or timestamp', with no indication of which identifier takes precedence when both are supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.