herdr_app_commandsLists every window command herdr_app_do can run, including arguments and behavior, so you can identify the correct action to execute.
Every window command herdr_app_do can run, with its arguments and what it does.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return content (commands, their arguments, and their effects), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the call is read-only / side-effect free, gives no sense of result size, and does not explain the relationship to the runtime state returned by siblings like herdr_app_status.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('every window command herdr_app_do can run') and then says what each entry contains. No filler, though it is arguably too short rather than too long.
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?
For a no-param, no-output-schema catalogue tool the essentials are present, but with no output schema the description should more concretely frame the shape of the returned command list and how to feed those arguments into herdr_app_do. Without annotations, some statement about read-only behavior would also help.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly presents this as a global catalogue with no filtering arguments.
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?
States a specific resource and intent: it enumerates every command that herdr_app_do can run, along with their arguments and behavior. Naming herdr_app_do ties it to a concrete sibling, so an agent can tell it is a discovery/introspection tool rather than an executor. Slightly ambiguous whether 'window command' means the command catalogue of the window subsystem or something narrower.
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?
Mentioning herdr_app_do implies the intended workflow (look up a command here before invoking it there), but the description never says when to call this versus just calling herdr_app_do directly, nor does it state any prerequisite. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.