Reads real accessible UI controls, IDs, labels, and windows as a bounded tree so you can inspect app structure; truncated output flags omitted controls.
Read the real accessible controls, IDs, labels and windows. Bounded tree; truncated indicates omitted controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| maxNodes | No | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the tree is bounded and a 'truncated' marker signals omitted controls, but it does not say what triggers truncation or how depth/maxNodes govern it.
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 what is returned and followed by the truncation caveat; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the edge of under-specification rather than padded.
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 carries the burden of describing the returned structure, yet it only hints at a tree with a truncated flag and never documents any parameter. For a tool an agent must call with a session and depth/node limits, this leaves important 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% for three parameters, and the description never mentions sessionId, depth, or maxNodes. The phrase 'bounded tree' loosely gestures at the trimming parameters but gives no semantics for defaults, limits, or the required session handle.
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: read the accessible controls/IDs/labels/windows tree. Clearly distinguishable from ui_screenshot (visual capture) or ui_action (mutation), but the description never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.
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?
No indication of when to use this instead of ui_screenshot, ui_menus, or ui_ux_check, and no prerequisites such as needing an active session. The agent must infer usage from the sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.