Open the theme selector in the TUI to change the current theme. Optionally target a specific project directory; defaults to the server's default project.
Open the theme selector in the TUI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing about behavior: it doesn't say whether this mutates state, whether the TUI must already be running, whether it blocks, or how a theme selection is later applied. For a UI-action tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the action is immediately clear.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (one optional param, no output schema), so the description is roughly adequate for invocation. It still leaves the agent without any sense of what opening the theme selector accomplishes or what to expect afterward.
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 single optional 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 (open) and resource (theme selector) confined to the TUI, which is clear on its own. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from the parallel open_help/open_sessions/open_models siblings, though the resource noun makes the distinction inferable.
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?
There is no indication of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the TUI-panel siblings. The usage is only implied by the verb 'open'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.