GPT Commander

dev_server_start

Launch a dev server from a detected target in a specified working directory, returning a process ID for process management.

Instructions

Start a detected dev server and return a process id

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'return a process id' but does not explain side effects (e.g., background process launch, resource cleanup, relationship to lifecycle tools), or what 'detected' entails. This is a significant gap for a process-starting tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the action and output. Every word contributes value, with no redundant information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (process startup, two parameters, no output schema or annotations), this description is too sparse. It omits crucial operational details such as parameter roles, prerequisite conditions for 'detected', and how the returned process id should be used or cleaned up.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'cwd' or 'target' at all. The parameter names are only mildly suggestive, and the description fails to add any meaning or usage context beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('detected dev server'), and states the return value ('process id'). It is clear about the tool's core function, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'start_process' beyond the 'detected' qualifier, which is somewhat vague.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_process' or how it relates to 'dev_server_stop'. The context is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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