sommus-laptop

by Jashan-Mshadow

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

quit_app

Destructive

Close a running macOS app by name; the app may prompt you to save unsaved work before it exits.

Instructions

Quit a running app. The app may still ask to save unsaved work.

Args:
    name: The app's name, e.g. "Spotify". Use list_apps first if unsure of the exact name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "quit_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the app "may still ask to save unsaved work," warning the agent that the call may be blocked by a dialog. It stops short of describing non-existent apps or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences plus a minimal Args block; the core action and its caveat are front-loaded with no filler. The "Args:" formatting is slightly formulaic but adds no bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter action tool with annotations covering the destructive profile and no output schema, the description supplies the parameter meaning, the prerequisite lookup tool, and the save-dialog caveat. Enough for correct invocation; only edge-case failure behavior is omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It names the argument, explains it is the app's name, gives a concrete example ("Spotify"), and points to list_apps for exact-name resolution. That compensates well for the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Quit a running app") that an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like open_app and list_apps without opening any schema. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: "Use list_apps first if unsure of the exact name." This is a clear when-to-use directive, though it does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare against alternatives such as run_shell.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.