Read visible AWT and Swing dialogs in Fiji to inspect their titles, messages, buttons, and modal state while waiting for user-opened dialogs to close.
List visible AWT and Swing dialogs, including each dialog's title, messages, buttons, and modal state A command that opened a dialog for the user (interactive registrations) waits until it is closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context not in annotations: that a command which opened an interactive dialog blocks until it is closed, which is critical for an agent orchestrating dialog handling.
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 listing purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is a run-on with a missing period ('modal state A command that opened...') that reads as a grammatical collision. The operational hint earns its place; its packaging does not.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly specifies the return shape (dialog titles, messages, buttons, modal state), and it flags the interaction with blocking commands. Adequate for a zero-param read tool, though it omits whether multiple dialogs can coexist or how unauthored dialogs appear.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('visible AWT and Swing dialogs') and enumerates what each entry contains (title, messages, buttons, modal state). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling fiji_ui_windows_read, so it stops short of a 5.
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the inspection step before fiji_ui_dialog_respond or fiji_ui_dialog_close, but neither alternative is named nor is a when-not condition given. The second sentence hints at the blocking scenario but never says when to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.