OmniCommanderMCP

by kaannsaydamm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

spawn_process

Start a detached process and return its PID. Provide command, arguments, and working directory.

Instructions

Start a detached process or application and return its PID.

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "spawn_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No
`args`	No
`command`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'detached' and 'return PID' but omits critical behaviors: synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, effects on user environment, or whether it supports arguments and working directory. This is insufficient for a process-spawning tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, well-formed sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and outcome, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return value details (e.g., PID type, error codes), parameter usage, or behavioral nuances like what 'detached' entails. Sibling tools cover similar actions, so more detail is needed.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It implies 'command' is used but does not clarify 'args' or 'cwd' (e.g., how to pass arguments, format of path). The mention of 'detached process' and 'PID' adds some context but not enough to compensate for missing parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'start', the resource 'detached process or application', and the output 'return its PID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command (likely foreground) and launch_application (possibly non-detached).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or launch_application. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or contextual cues.

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