Open a URL in the projector browser to display web content on a projector screen. Use it to launch a specific page for presentations or shared viewing.
Open a URL on the projector browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to open on the projector |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no mention of whether the page replaces the current one, whether it steals focus, whether a projector session must exist, or what is returned. For a mutation tool that reroutes display state, this is thin.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.
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 (one string param, no output schema, annotations present), so heavy documentation isn't needed. Still, an agent cannot tell from this description whether the projector must be awake or set up beforehand, or whether opening a URL disrupts current projector content — both relevant given the surrounding projector_* tools.
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?
One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'url' as the URL to open. The description contributes no format constraints (scheme requirements, local file vs http, length limits), so the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Open a URL') and scopes it to 'the projector browser', which helps separate it from the generic sibling open_url. It's clear but does not fully articulate how it differs from open_url beyond the target surface.
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 rather than open_url, or whether the projector must be awake/configured first (siblings projector_wake, projector_setup, projector_status imply prerequisites). No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.