open_in_compositorOpen or reload a .comp project in Compositor to see the rendered result. Pass the project package path to display it on your Mac.
Opens (or reloads) the project in the Compositor app on this Mac so the user can see the result. Compositor reads the package from disk on open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the .comp project package (a directory ending in .comp) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that 'Compositor reads the package from disk on open', which explains why changes are reflected. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the open behavior. No contradiction.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional sentence about reading from disk is relevant and brief. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the action, purpose, and a key behavioral nuance. It does not mention any prerequisites like Compositor being installed, but that is likely assumed. Overall, nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the path parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, such as format or constraints, beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Opens (or reloads) the project in the Compositor app') and the resource (project, .comp package). It distinguishes itself from siblings like render_preview and inspect_project by specifying the Compositor app as the target. The verb and resource are specific and not a tautology.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use it: to see the result in the Compositor app. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring render_preview for a quick preview. This is a minor gap, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.