Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Screenshot Capture

screenshot_capture
Read-only

Captures a single frame of a display, window, or region to a PNG. Returns {path, resolution (PIXELS), scale_factor, display_id} — scale_factor is the backing scale of the display that was ACTUALLY captured (the same value list_displays reports for that display_id, by construction: both read one function), so pixels = points x scale_factor when converting a coordinate from the image to ui_click. If the display could not be determined you get scale_factor_unknown instead of a guess; resolution is always there, so you can derive the ratio yourself. Requires Screen Recording permission; without it returns an explicit permission_required, never a blank image.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
output_pathNoWhere to write the PNG (default: temp file). Missing parent folders are created.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation by disclosing the permission requirement (Screen Recording permission), error behavior (returns permission_required, never a blank image), and the scale_factor/unknown edge case. It also explains the relationship between pixels and points, which is critical behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but information-rich, front-loading the core function before adding edge cases and permission notes. It is longer than minimal, but each sentence adds necessary behavioral context (permission, scale_factor semantics, error handling), so there is no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a capture tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape, resolution semantics, permission failure mode, and the display_id construction guarantee. The only minor gap is not explaining the 'region' global points coordinate space, but the schema notes it as global points. Given the complexity and no output schema, this is complete.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (target and output_path have descriptions), and the tool description adds return-value semantics (resolution, scale_factor) that help interpret output. The nested target object is adequately described by the schema. The description also clarifies the meaning of scale_factor in the output, which adds value beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Captures a single frame of a display, window, or region to a PNG'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screen_record_start (video capture) and web_screenshot (browser page capture). It also names the return shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description implicitly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives: it captures a single frame, unlike screen_record_start for video or web_screenshot for web pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for static screen capture.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources