Choose an Affinity command by hierarchical path, such as Vector > Geometry > Add, to trigger exact UI actions without clicking.
Choose a menu item by path, e.g. ["Vector", "Geometry", "Add"]. Exact, no clicking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| screenshot_after | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: matching is exact, not fuzzy, and no mouse coordinates are involved. It says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid/nonexistent path, required app state, or whether menu interaction is reversible.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by a concrete example. Zero filler; every element 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It covers the core invocation but omits return format, screenshot_after semantics, and error conditions for an invalid path, leaving gaps for a GUI-automation tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example path ["Vector", "Geometry", "Add"] usefully demonstrates that path is an ordered array of menu labels, but the second parameter screenshot_after is never mentioned, leaving its effect on behavior/return undocumented.
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+resource (choose a menu item by hierarchical path) and illustrates it with a concrete example path, so the agent knows exactly what invocation looks like. It distinguishes itself from the click/double_click siblings via "Exact, no clicking," though it never explicitly names list_menu as the discovery counterpart.
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?
"Exact, no clicking" implies the usage condition: use this instead of coordinate-based clicking when a menu path is known. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of pairing with list_menu to discover valid paths, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. window focus).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.