abrir_aplicacionLaunch an installed application by its name, and optionally open a specific file with it. Use this to start desktop apps or open documents in the right program.
Abre una aplicacion instalada por su nombre (ej: 'Safari', 'Notepad', 'firefox'). Opcionalmente abre un archivo con ella.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nombre | Yes | Nombre de la aplicacion | |
| archivo | No | Ruta de un archivo a abrir con la app (opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with launching a process, so the description does not contradict anything. It adds the constraint that the app must be installed, but says nothing about whether the call blocks until the app opens, what happens if the path or name is invalid, or what a successful response looks like.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the optional file behavior. The examples earn their place by illustrating the expected name format.
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 two-parameter launcher with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the optional file path adequately. The only real gap is error/edge-case behavior, which is minor for a tool this small.
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 100%, so both 'nombre' and 'archivo' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the name is the app name and the file is optional, but adds no syntax, path-format, or fallback details beyond the schema.
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 concrete verb and resource: 'Abre una aplicacion instalada por su nombre', with examples ('Safari', 'Notepad', 'firefox') that pin down the naming convention. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling listar_aplicaciones, but the action is specific enough to tell apart.
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 implies the use case (launch an already-installed app, optionally with a file), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when the app name is unknown (e.g., use listar_aplicaciones first), and no note on failure behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.