clipboardReads plain text from or writes plain text to the system's temporary text area, enabling AI agents to transfer content between tabs and applications.
Reads or writes the system clipboard as plain text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text to write (action write). | |
| action | Yes | What to do. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows writes are possible and the tool is not open-world. The description adds that content is plain text only, which is useful, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or error conditions.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action and the content format immediately.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention permissions or overwrite behavior, but the essential behavior is covered.
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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond confirming plain-text handling, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource: reading or writing the system clipboard. It is clear and unambiguous, and no sibling tool covers clipboard access, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the read/write action enum and the plain-text limitation, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool or any prerequisites such as clipboard permissions or focus requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.