computer_get_targetResolve a single computer target and report its capabilities, permission state, and platform details for cross-platform GUI automation.
Resolve one target and report its capabilities, permission state and platform details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Unified device target (spec §14). Defaults to this machine with auto-detected platform. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what is reported (capabilities, permission state, platform details) and implies a read-only resolve operation, but it does not disclose permissions required, error behavior, or rate limits.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and the reported outputs. It is appropriately sized for the tool.
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 a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return content adequately. However, given no annotations, it leaves gaps around usage context, safety guarantees, and failure modes.
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 coverage is 100%, so the nested target object is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb 'resolve' and a specific resource 'one target', and lists the reported details. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like computer_list_targets or computer_get_state.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'one target' implies a single-target lookup, but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named sibling alternates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.