Select a running Qt app by instance ID, PID, name, or window title to make it the default target for subsequent widget inspection, interaction, and capture calls.
Make one running Qt app the default target for later tool calls.
Args: instance: Instance id, pid, name, or words from a window title, e.g. "PIPE-1234".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | Yes |
| 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 exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the key behavioral trait that selection persists and affects later calls. However, it says nothing about ambiguity handling (multiple matching windows), validation failures, or whether the selection is process-wide or per-session.
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 sentences front-load the effect, followed by a tight parameter note with an example. Minimal waste, though the 'Args:' block formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter.
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?
For a simple session-state tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and the one parameter's accepted formats. The remaining gap is failure/ambiguity behavior, which matters but is secondary.
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, and it does: the single parameter accepts an instance id, pid, name, or words from a window title, with a concrete example ('PIPE-1234'). It does not note that integer input corresponds to a pid or how partial window-title matching resolves.
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: makes one running Qt app the default target for subsequent tool calls. This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like qt_list_instances, though it never names a 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?
The phrase 'default target for later tool calls' implies it should be invoked before other Qt tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as qt_list_instances for discovering instances first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.