Launch Typora with Chrome DevTools Protocol enabled and wait for its renderer to be ready, enabling debugging or automation sessions.
Find and launch Typora with CDP enabled, then wait until a renderer is ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | No | ||
| debugPort | No | ||
| extraArgs | No | ||
| userDataDir | No | Optional isolated Electron profile directory; permits a separate Typora instance | |
| executablePath | No | ||
| restartIfNeeded | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that – enabling CDP and blocking until a renderer is ready – but omits what happens if an instance is already running and how restartIfNeeded interacts with that.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler, with the primary action stated first and the readiness wait appended. It is appropriately sized for the core action it conveys.
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 6-parameter launch tool with no output schema, the definition is too thin: it does not document parameters, describe failure/edge cases (already-running instance, launch failure), or route the agent away from typora_restart. The core action is covered but the surrounding context an agent needs is missing.
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 only 17% (just userDataDir documented), so the description must compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It adds no parameter-level meaning at all – 'CDP enabled' only loosely implies debugPort – leaving most fields unexplained in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find and launch Typora with CDP enabled') plus an operational detail ('wait until a renderer is ready'), so an agent knows what it does. However, it does not differentiate from the close sibling typora_restart, leaving the choice ambiguous without opening schemas.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this versus typora_restart or typora_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.