Remove a user startup entry without triggering a UAC prompt. Returns a JSON confirmation with the task name and operation status.
Remove user startup without showing UAC; elevated tasks may require an elevated server.
Returns: str: JSON {"ok": bool, "output": "...", "task_name": "..."}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Beyond the annotations' destructive and readOnly hints, the description adds that UAC is not shown and that elevated tasks may require an elevated server, which are useful behavioral constraints. It also discloses the return format, adding meaningful context beyond structured fields.
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 description is two sentences and includes a structured return type block. Every phrase earns its place: action, UAC behavior, elevation caveat, and return format. No redundancy.
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 zero-parameter destructive tool with output format specified, the description covers the core purpose, behavioral caveats, and return value. The elevation caveat is especially important for proper invocation. The description is complete enough given the tool's simplicity.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description lacks parameter details by necessity, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 tool removes user startup entries without UAC, which distinguishes it from sibling install_startup and other startup management tools. The verb 'remove' and resource 'user startup' are specific and actionable.
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 provides context by noting the UAC-free operation and the elevation requirement for elevated tasks, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.