Opens or closes the VISUDesigner GUI. Close before automated visu operations; open with optional .lvp file path to launch.
Open or close the VISUDesigner GUI. Close before running automated visu operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | 'open' launches VISUDesigner; 'close' kills it. | |
| lvp_path | No | Full path to the .lvp station file to open (open only). Omit to auto-detect from the selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint=true annotation already signals that this tool can destroy state, and the description adds a genuine behavioral note about sequencing (close before automated visu operations). It does not explain what is lost on close (unsaved state?) or whether the kill is graceful, so it only partially compensates for the gap.
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, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the operational warning second. 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 two-parameter GUI toggle with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers the action, the target, and the key precondition. It stops short of describing failure modes or what 'kill' means for in-flight work, which is the only meaningful gap.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and the auto-detect behavior of lvp_path. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 specific verbs (open/close) and the resource (VISUDesigner GUI), so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like visu_project or hmi_runtime, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 sentence 'Close before running automated visu operations' gives a real ordering precondition for the close action, which is useful guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to open versus when the GUI is unnecessary, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.