Captures the Assetto Corsa window and saves it as PNG or JPG to a specified path, using CSP's screenshot API with a PowerShell fallback when unavailable.
Save a screenshot (PNG/JPG by extension) to path via CSP ac.makeScreenshot; falls back to a PowerShell
capture of the AC window. Returns the path and the method used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| hide_apps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the primary mechanism and the PowerShell fallback, plus what is returned. However, it omits permission requirements, whether the AC window must be foreground/visible, and side effects such as overwriting an existing file at `path`.
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?
Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the fallback and return value. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does cover return values ('path and method used'), which is good. But for a 2-param tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving `hide_apps` unexplained and not addressing overwrite/permission behavior leaves gaps an agent would hit on first call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `path` by explaining the output format is inferred from the file extension, but `hide_apps` (a 2nd parameter with default true) is never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented.
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 and resource ('Save a screenshot') plus the mechanism (CSP ac.makeScreenshot). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ac_get_state or ac_status, which do not write image files.
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 implies usage (capturing the AC window) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites. The fallback behavior is stated, which implicitly tells the agent the tool may still succeed if the CSP path fails, but there is no guidance on when this is the right tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.