Control Logic Pro project lifecycle actions like launch, open, save, and close with AppleScript and key commands.
Project lifecycle via AppleScript + key commands. save/new/close use key commands (need Accessibility).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses AppleScript/key-command implementation and that save/new/close require Accessibility permission, but omits mutation/destructive implications, prerequisites for launch/open/quit, and error or return behavior.
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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the implementation method and followed by the key permission caveat. The terseness reflects under-specification rather than structural verbosity.
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 an 11-action project tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not define action meanings, path usage, return values, or safety implications, covering only key-command actions and Accessibility.
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%, and the description mentions only save/new/close implementation details. It does not explain the action enum values (launch, activate, quit, open, save_as, undo, redo, info) or the optional path parameter, leaving most parameter semantics 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 domain ('Project lifecycle') and names three actions, but does not give a specific verb or enumerate the 11 capabilities in the action enum. It is distinguishable from siblings only by the word 'project,' not by explicit comparison.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives among logic_keys, logic_system, or other siblings. Usage is only implied by the 'project lifecycle' framing; there are no exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.