Capture the Flipper Zero's current 128x64 screen as a PNG image to view its display directly.
Capture the Flipper's current screen (128x64) as a PNG image.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "flipper_screenshot"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the output is a PNG image but does not clarify whether the image is returned in the response, saved to a file, or if any side effects exist. The lack of an output schema and absence of details about the delivery mechanism leaves significant ambiguity.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information (action, target, resolution, output format) with zero redundancy. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description should specify what the caller receives or where the image goes. Saying 'as a PNG image' implies the result format but not whether it's a file path, binary data, or something else. This ambiguity leaves the description slightly incomplete for a low-complexity tool.
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 has zero parameters and an empty schema with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing to add beyond the schema. The description correctly avoids irrelevant parameter details.
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 action ('Capture'), resource ('Flipper's current screen'), format ('PNG image'), and resolution ('128x64'). This is specific and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which cover connection, files, CLI, and other functions.
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: you use this tool when you need to capture the Flipper's screen as an image. However, it provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple standalone tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.