hypr-mcp

by tuan-cre

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

launch_app

Launch an application detached and wait for its window to appear. Set a custom timeout for fast or slow starting apps.

Instructions

Launch an app detached (no shell — binary + args only). Waits for its window.

Slow starters (Steam) need the generous default; pass a smaller timeout for known-fast apps, larger for known-slow ones.

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "launch_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command`	Yes
`timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the app is launched detached, bypasses the shell, and waits for the window. It could mention error behavior on timeout or missing binary, but the essential side effects are covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information. The main behavior is front-loaded)Skip no filler. Formatting is scannable and efficient.

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 with no nested objects and an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation semantics alert(clarification). Minor gaps: no explicit timeout units or failure-mode note, but these are inferable from the timeout guidance.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has no field descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains that command is passed directly (binary + args only) and frames timeout as a tunable for fast vs slow apps. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: launching an app detached from the shell, with binary plus arguments only. It also states that it waits for the app's window, which is precise and distinct from the sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides practical guidance on adjusting the timeout for slow vs fast apps, using Steam as a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but there is no directly competing sibling tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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