desktop_ahkExecute AutoHotkey v2 scripts on your desktop to automate Windows tasks, gated by an active mission's desktop permission.
Execute an AutoHotkey v2 script via AutoHotkey.exe. Requires desktop_permission in active mission step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes | AutoHotkey v2 script text to execute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful non-schema context: the execution dependency on AutoHotkey.exe and the requirement for desktop_permission in the active mission step, which is exactly the kind of auth prerequisite annotations cannot express.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the permission prerequisite immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it does and the permission gate. It omits timeout/blocking behavior and what the script returns, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('AutoHotkey v2 script text to execute'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds the version constraint (v2) but no format, size, or content guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Execute an AutoHotkey v2 script via AutoHotkey.exe.' This clearly distinguishes it from the other desktop_* tools (click, type, find) and from navig_run_command, though it never explicitly names an alternative. Clear purpose, no explicit sibling routing.
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 a real precondition — 'Requires desktop_permission in active mission step' — which tells the agent when this tool is even callable. It does not, however, say when to prefer an AHK script over desktop_type/desktop_shortcut or navig_run_command, so usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.