Launch an installed application by its display name, executable name, or full path. Specify either name or path to start the app directly.
启动一个已安装的应用。
Args: name: 应用显示名（如 "Docker Desktop"）或 exe 名（如 "notepad"）。 会按注册表 DisplayName 或 PATH 查找。 path: 应用 exe 的完整路径（优先于 name 使用）。
Returns: 是否成功启动，以及使用的路径/对象。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses lookup behavior (registry DisplayName or PATH) and return contents, which is helpful, but it does not mention side effects like starting a new GUI process, error behavior when the app is not found, or whether it blocks until the app exits.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args block with clear parameter semantics, and a Returns note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 simple two-parameter launcher with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation semantics and return value. It could be more complete by noting failure conditions or how to handle already-running apps, but nothing critical needed to call the tool correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: name accepts a display name or exe name, lookup uses registry/PATH, and path is the full exe path with priority over name. This adds meaning the schema completely lacks.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 启动一个已安装的应用 (launch an installed app). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like open_url, screenshot, and app_running, which target different objects or operations.
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?
The description explains how to launch an app with name or path, but it never states when to prefer open_app over alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no explicit routing such as 'for URLs use open_url' or 'to check if already running use app_running'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.