macos-mcp-automation

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

quit_app

Quit or force-close any macOS app by specifying its name. Ends application processes to resolve unresponsive behavior or free memory.

Instructions

Quits or force-closes a running macOS application by name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "appName": "<appName>"
    },
    "name": "quit_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Whether to force quit the application.
`appName`	Yes	The name of the application to close (e.g. Safari, Mail).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It communicates both normal quit and force-close modes, but does not warn about potential unsaved-data loss, permissions, or behavior if the app is not running. This 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence with no filler; every phrase ('Quits or force-closes', 'running macOS application', 'by name') earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation and selection criterion (app name), and the schema documents the optional force flag. It lacks minor context about no-op/error behavior, but is otherwise sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the description need not add parameter details. It adds no significant semantics beyond the schema's 'Whether to force quit' and app name description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Quits or force-closes'), the target ('a running macOS application'), and the method ('by name'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like open_app and list_apps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for terminating applications, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., run_applescript or open_app) or when not to use force quit. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.