Launch Screen Studio with a local 127.0.0.1 automation connection for agent control; if already running, keep it open without killing or restarting it.
Launch Screen Studio with a local automation connection (bound to 127.0.0.1). A running app is never killed or restarted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds two genuinely useful traits on top: the connection is bound to 127.0.0.1 (no remote exposure) and a running app is never killed or restarted (idempotent, non-disruptive to existing sessions). It stops short of saying whether the call blocks until the app is ready or how it behaves if the app is not installed.
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, both earning their place: the first states what the tool does and its connection scope, the second states the non-destructive guarantee. Nothing is padded.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description only needs to convey what happens when it is called, which it largely does (launches app, local automation binding, leaves running instances alone). Minor gaps remain around synchronous vs. async behavior and failure cases, but nothing an agent needs to avoid a wrong call.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies.
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 states a specific verb (launch) and resource (Screen Studio) plus the operating mode (local automation connection bound to 127.0.0.1). That distinguishes it immediately from siblings like screenstudio_quit, screenstudio_status, and screenstudio_record_start without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the presence of a launch tool next to status/quit/record tools makes the 'start the app first' context inferable, and the note that a running app is never restarted hints at idempotent use. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this rather than attaching to an already-running instance, nor of prerequisites or ordering relative to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.