Start the Uindow application, downloading required files if needed. Returns true when launched, false when already running.
Start application
If Uindow is already running, silently return false.
Otherwise, download the required version of Electron.js and Uindow as needed,
launch the Uindow application, and return true.
Returns: True if the app was launched, false if it was already running
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses idempotent behavior (false when already running), download-on-demand side effects, and the return signals. It could mention failure modes such as download/launch errors, but for a zero-argument tool it is sufficiently transparent.
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?
The description is succinct and well-structured: a one-line summary, conditional behavior, and a returns line. Minor redundancy and the repeated 'Uindow' typo prevent a perfect score, but there is no wasted content.
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 a no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description explains what happens, when it returns false, and what it returns on success. It lacks explicit failure/exception information, but overall it provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema burden for the description to compensate for. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 ('Start', 'launch') and resource ('application'), and clearly communicates the action: launch the Uindow app and return true/false. It is easy to distinguish from sibling lifecycle tools like app_stop and app_status.
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?
Gives useful conditional usage context: if already running, return false; otherwise download dependencies and launch. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as app_status for checking state before calling, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.