Pastes long or unicode text into the active window by copying it to the clipboard and sending Ctrl+V, avoiding input method failures.
Reliable path for unicode/long text: clipboard + ctrl+v (wtype chokes on these).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| target | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mechanism (clipboard + ctrl+v) and the reliability rationale, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention side effects like clipboard overwriting, which is a notable gap for a tool that manipulates the clipboard.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose and the differentiator. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple paste operation but lacks details about the 'target' parameter, clipboard side effects, and return behavior. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the missing parameter semantics and side-effect disclosure leave gaps.
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 explains the purpose of the 'text' parameter implicitly (the text to paste) but doesn't clarify the 'target' parameter at all. The description adds some meaning for the main parameter but leaves the optional parameter 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?
The description states a specific verb ('paste') and resource ('text'), and explains the mechanism (clipboard + ctrl+v). It distinguishes itself from type_text by noting wtype chokes on unicode/long text, which helps differentiate from the sibling tool.
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 when to use this tool: for unicode/long text where wtype (likely used by type_text) fails. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.