Replays a verified desktop route in one guarded call, checking each mapped screen and stopping on divergence; write or irreversible effects require explicit authorization.
Execute a verified desktop route in one call. Each step checks the expected mapped screen and stops on divergence. Write effects require explicit authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | Yes | ||
| app_id | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| application | No | ||
| authorized_effects | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: per-step screen verification with stop-on-divergence, and an explicit authorization requirement for write effects. It omits the consequences of divergence (error vs. partial application), reversibility of 'irreversible' effects, and return behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two most decision-relevant facts (verification and authorization). No filler, though the last sentence is slightly under-specified for the space it takes.
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?
A five-parameter execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage needs far more: parameter meaning, return shape, and divergence/failure semantics are all absent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: start, target, app_id, and application are never explained, and 'explicit authorization' only vaguely gestures at authorized_effects without naming it or its 'write'/'irreversible' enum values.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Execute a verified desktop route in one call.' The word 'desktop' implicitly separates it from pulse_browser_replay, but the sibling is never named explicitly. The purpose is clear without opening the schema.
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?
Implies usage: use it with a 'verified' route, and writes need authorization. But it never says when to prefer this over pulse_browser_replay, pulse_desktop_click sequences, or pulse_map_route, nor what preconditions make a route 'verified.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.