Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VRCH MCP

VRCH MCP

by VrchStudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

apps_launch

Launches or focuses a saved app on the device within an invitation's enabled Launch/Exit scope, using app state first and granting only exact requested capabilities when required.

Instructions

Launch or focus a saved App on the device within this invitation’s enabled Launch/Exit scope. Read apps_state first. Supply replaceInstanceId only after deciding to replace that known target; on capability_required, inspect the returned manifestDigest and requestedCapabilities. Within an authorized App launch task, retry with those exact values and allow:true to grant its declared App communication capabilities. Browser/OS permissions and Allow AI still require the person. Does not save a draft.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allowNoExplicitly grant only the exact capability_required decision returned for this saved App.
appIdYes
operationIdNo
manifestDigestNo
replaceInstanceIdNo
expectedPackageDigestYes
requestedCapabilitiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explicitly grant only the exact capability_required decision returned for this saved App.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / manifestDigest
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestedCapabilities
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare mutation and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context: the Launch/Exit scope, capability granting flow, human-required browser/OS and Allow AI permissions, and the fact that it does not save a draft. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds operational guidance, with no filler. It is dense with conditional clauses, but that density is functional rather than wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the complex capability-negotiation path and permission boundaries well, but with no output schema and very low schema description coverage, it leaves critical required parameters like expectedPackageDigest unclarified. An agent still lacks full invocation semantics for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is very low at 14%, and the description compensates for only some parameters: replaceInstanceId, manifestDigest, requestedCapabilities, and allow are explained conditionally. Required parameters appId and expectedPackageDigest, plus operationId, remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: launch or focus a saved App within the invitation’s enabled Launch/Exit scope. This distinguishes it from state-reading siblings like apps_state and from exit behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from apps_open.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear prerequisites and conditional usage: read apps_state first, use replaceInstanceId only after deciding to replace a known target, and retry with allow:true after a capability_required response. It does not name which sibling to use for alternative launch/open scenarios, keeping it below a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools