Launches the specified MicroPython app by app_id as the single foreground process on the CYD desktop. Use to run the app located at /sd/apps//main.py.
Machine-specific (cyd). Action, L1. Launch /sd/apps//main.py as the single foreground MicroPython app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'single foreground' hints at exclusivity, but the description does not disclose what happens to the currently running app, whether stopping/termination occurs, what side effects may result, or what the return/status behavior is.
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 very compact and front-loaded with the essential action. 'Action, L1' is cryptic and adds little clarity, but it does not create bloat; overall the description is efficient and direct.
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 one-parameter action, the description is adequate in naming the target script and the single-foreground behavior. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it remains incomplete about side effects and expected results, which an agent would need for safe invocation.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by embedding app_id in a path (/sd/apps/<app_id>/main.py), making clear that the parameter identifies the application directory. However, it does not explain how to discover valid app_id values or which sibling tools provide them.
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 a specific action (launch) and a specific resource (/sd/apps/<app_id>/main.py), and adds behavioral scope ('single foreground MicroPython app'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cyd_launch, cyd_run, or cyd_activate.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as cyd_launch, cyd_run, or cyd_activate. The only contextual hint is the cryptic 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Action, L1', which do not provide practical selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.