Enable or disable an installed plugin, extension, or script by path, renaming it to or from .disabled so the app skips it on next launch.
Enable or disable an installed plugin / extension / script by path (renames to/from ".disabled" so the app skips it on next launch). Program Files locations may need the MCP to run as administrator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| enabled | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context by disclosing the on-disk rename mechanism, that the change takes effect on next app launch, and that Program Files locations may require the MCP to run elevated. It does not cover behavior on an invalid/missing path, which is the main remaining 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 sentences, verb-first, with the mechanism as a compact parenthetical and the administrator caveat last. Nothing is redundant.
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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, timing and privilege requirements. What it lacks is any indication of the response (success/permission-denied signaling) or handling of a nonexistent path.
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 load. It implies 'path' is the plugin's filesystem location and 'enabled' is a boolean toggle, but it never says whether the path should be the original filename or a '.disabled' name, nor whether it must be absolute — a genuine ambiguity given the rename behavior.
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 pair ('Enable or disable') plus the exact resource ('installed plugin / extension / script') and the mechanism used ('renames to/from .disabled'). This clearly separates it from siblings like adobe_installPlugin, adobe_listPlugins and adobe_pluginFile.
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 implicit condition for use is that the plugin is already installed, and the admin note tells the agent when the call may fail. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with siblings such as adobe_installPlugin (install vs. toggle) or adobe_listPlugins (discover paths first), leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.