Launch a process on a TwinCAT target IPC by specifying an executable path, optional working directory, and command-line arguments; destructive action may require confirmation.
Start a process on the target IPC (NT_StartProcess equivalent). Destructive-class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| directory | No | ||
| command_line | No | ||
| confirm_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'Destructive-class' tag merely restates the destructiveHint=true annotation already provided, adding no new behavioral context. Critical details an agent needs before launching a process on a remote IPC — whether a confirm_token must be obtained first, what permissions are required, and what happens to the returned process handle — are absent.
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 sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on being a stub for a destructive multi-parameter tool.
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 destructive process-launch operation with four undocumented parameters and a confirmation token, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the missing confirmation/permission model and parameter meanings leave an agent unable to invoke this safely.
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 four parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden and delivers almost nothing. It never explains path, directory, command_line, or the all-important confirm_token, leaving the agent to guess at defaults and confirmation semantics.
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 ('Start a process on the target IPC') and adds a domain mapping ('NT_StartProcess equivalent'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling ipc_* tools (ipc_reboot, ipc_write_file, ipc_delete_file) or to signal how it relates to the tc_* safety tooling.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of the prerequisite workflow implied by the sibling tc_request_confirmation / tc_safety_status tools. The presence of a confirm_token parameter suggests gating, but the description gives no guidance on obtaining or passing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.