OmniCommanderMCP

by kaannsaydamm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

close_application

Terminate any running application by providing its process or application name.

Instructions

Close/terminate an application by process or application name.

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": "close_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates a destructive action but does not disclose confirmation prompts, side effects on dependent processes, or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It effectively communicates the core function without verbosity, but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and rich parameter details, the description falls short of providing complete context. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or error handling, leaving agents underinformed.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely explains the 'name' parameter as 'by process or application name'. No details on format, case sensitivity, or partial matching are provided, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The description uses the clear verb 'Close/terminate' and specifies the resource 'application'. It implies operation by name, differentiating from sibling 'kill_process' which likely uses PID, though not explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kill_process' or 'spawn_process'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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