Get a snapshot of active desktop processes, returning each app's PID, name, bundle ID, and active state for reliable UI automation and window management.
List running applications with their handles (pid, name, bundle_id, active).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields (pid, name, bundle_id, active), which is useful, but it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions required, or behavior when no apps are running. It is not misleading, but it could add more context about the scope (e.g., all apps vs. visible apps) and the nature of the operation.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the purpose and output fields without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase earns its place. It is appropriately concise.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns. It names the fields explicitly, which is helpful. However, it does not specify whether the list is sorted, limited to foreground apps, or if there are any edge cases. For a basic listing tool, this is generally adequate, hence a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by stating what the tool lists, even though params are moot.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'running applications', and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (pid, name, bundle_id, active). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_app_state, which might also return similar info, so it loses one point for not distinguishing.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where another tool (e.g., get_app_state for a single app) would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implicit from the generic listing behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.