Capture a named UI snapshot limited to specified fields, with optional filters for control type, automation ID, root ID, or XPATH. Retrieve targeted interface data while debugging .NET apps.
Capture a named field-limited UI snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| xpath | No | ||
| fields | Yes | ||
| root_id | No | ||
| snapshot | Yes | ||
| max_results | No | ||
| control_type | No | ||
| automation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and deterministic. The description adds that it is 'field-limited' and 'named', but does not explain side effects like whether snapshots are stored or overwrite existing ones.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. While it could benefit from slightly more detail, it is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the purpose of many parameters, the scope of the snapshot, or how it integrates with other tools in the UI/debugging context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining two parameters ('name' and 'fields') but leaves the other six parameters (automation_id, control_type, etc.) undocumented. This insufficiently aids an agent in using all parameters correctly.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('capture'), resource ('UI snapshot'), and qualifiers ('named field-limited'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ui_take_screenshot' (visual screenshot) and 'create_snapshot' (likely without field filtering).
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_snapshot', 'list_snapshots'). No explicit context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.