Activate a specific Windows desktop window by its title and optional text to bring it into focus for subsequent keyboard, mouse, or UI automation tasks.
Windows AutoIt winActivate. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Window text | |
| title | Yes | Window title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing environmental prerequisites (trusted owner, interactive Windows x64 desktop), which annotations do not convey. It does not explain what activation does or what happens when the target window is not found, so it is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, no padding, so nothing is wasted. However, the leading sentence merely repeats the tool name rather than front-loading actual behavior, so brevity here reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must stand alone, and for a simple 2-param tool with annotations covering the safety profile the environmental prerequisite note is useful. It still omits what activation actually does and failure behavior, leaving a modest gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so 'title' (required) and 'text' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 essentially restates the tool name ('Windows AutoIt winActivate') without stating that it brings a window to the foreground or otherwise activating it. It adds only a library/runtime hint ('Windows AutoIt'), and given the sibling winActivateByHandle exists, it fails to differentiate the two. This is close to tautology.
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?
The description gives prerequisites ('requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop') but no when-to-use guidance and no routing to the obvious alternative winActivateByHandle (title vs handle). An agent cannot infer from this text which activation tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.