Quit an Adobe app by command with safe, save, discard, or force modes. Use safe to block quitting when unsaved work exists, save to preserve work, or discard/force to close without saving.
Quit an Adobe app by command. mode: "safe" (default — refuses if anything is unsaved), "save" (saves open work first), "discard" (closes without saving), "force" (kills the process — unsaved work is lost).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | ||
| mode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance the annotation cannot: destruction is conditional on mode, and 'force' kills the process with guaranteed data loss. It also discloses the default mode, which is not in the schema. Not a 5 because it doesn't say whether the call blocks on a save dialog or what the 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?
A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the mode definitions enumerated compactly. Every clause conveys risk information, though the nested quoting makes it slightly harder to scan than a short list.
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 destructive, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk surface (per-mode data-loss semantics and the safe default). The remaining gap is the unexplained app-code enum, which matters for correct invocation.
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 carry the parameter burden. It fully explains all four `mode` values including the default, but says nothing about the `app` enum (ae/pr/ps/ai/ame) — an agent gets no confirmation those codes mean After Effects, Premiere, Photoshop, Illustrator, Media Encoder.
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+resource pair ("Quit an Adobe app") with app-level scope, which is distinct from document-level siblings like ps_closeDocument and ai_closeDocument. It does not explicitly name those siblings to reinforce the distinction, but the app-vs-document framing 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 four modes effectively encode when-to-use guidance: 'safe' is the default and refuses on unsaved work, 'discard' and 'force' warn about data loss, 'save' preserves work. What's missing is routing guidance versus alternatives (e.g., closing a single document instead of quitting the whole app).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.