Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Ui Get Element

ui_get_element
Read-only

Re-resolves a previously returned element_ref (its bounds/state may have changed). Returns role, label, bounds, focused, value, and enabled ONLY when the app publishes AXEnabled — that attribute is optional, so many perfectly usable controls omit it (TextEdit's text area does). When it is missing you get enabled_unknown: true instead; that is 'unknown', NOT disabled, and ui_click will click it. stale_element if the handle is unknown or the element no longer exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
element_refYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by explaining the optional nature of `enabled`, the `enabled_unknown: true` fallback, the fact that unknown is not disabled and remains clickable, and the `stale_element` failure mode. This is precisely the kind of non-obvious runtime behavior an agent needs.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds essential information: core action, return fields, conditional attribute semantics, and error behavior. The TextEdit example is a concrete clarification rather than padding, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description documents the return payload, the conditional presence of fields, the semantics of the unknown flag, and the stale-element error. For a single-parameter read-only utility, nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for `element_ref`. It explains that the value must be a previously returned element handle and what happens when it is stale or unknown, which is meaningful semantic context beyond the bare 'string' type.

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?

Description opens with a specific action ('Re-resolves a previously returned element_ref') and a clear resource, distinguishing it from lookup-style siblings like ui_find_element. It also enumerates what is returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 phrase 'previously returned element_ref' establishes the intended use case: refresh a stale handle rather than search for a new one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough from the opening clause.

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