Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agy-profiles

agy-profiles

by harrymove-ctrl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

launcher_build

Compiles a macOS Spotlight/Dock .app shim so you can launch a sandboxed profile directly from the desktop.

Instructions

Compile a macOS Spotlight/Dock .app shim for launching a sandboxed profile.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "launcher_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
destNo
nameYes
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether a file is written to disk, where it goes, whether an existing shim is overwritten, or what permissions are required. The compile/write nature of the operation is only inferable from the verb.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the artifact being produced is stated before the purpose. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than true density.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a three-parameter write-side tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent guessing about destination behavior, target semantics, and side effects. It answers only 'what is produced,' not 'how to call it safely or correctly.'

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters (name, dest, target), so the description must compensate and it does not. "Sandboxed profile" only loosely points at the required name parameter, and neither dest nor the hub/ide enum values are explained anywhere.

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 ("Compile") and a specific artifact (".app shim") with platform and mechanism qualifiers (macOS Spotlight/Dock), so an agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not name or differentiate against the closest sibling, launcher_remove, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase "for launching a sandboxed profile" implies the downstream purpose but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g. a profile must already exist), and no exclusions. Nothing tells the agent why it would call launcher_build rather than profile_launch or how the two relate.

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