Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pi Desktop Bridge

Pi Desktop Bridge

by 0xHayd3n
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

desktop_move

Destructive

Move the mouse pointer to specified desktop or image pixel coordinates and return a fresh screenshot for verification.

Instructions

Move the pointer in original desktop pixels, or image pixels with the current view_id, then show a fresh screenshot.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "desktop_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
view_idNo
capture_max_widthNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds a concrete side effect not captured by structured fields: it captures and returns a fresh screenshot after the move. The coordinate-mode behavior is also disclosed. It does not mention permissions or the return format beyond the screenshot, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveying coordinate modes and the screenshot side effect with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema is present, so the description usefully notes the fresh screenshot as the result. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves capture_max_width unexplained and offers no guidance on coordinate-mode errors or prerequisites, so it is only adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains x/y units and that view_id switches to image-pixel interpretation, covering 3 of 4 parameters, but says nothing about capture_max_width, leaving one parameter's behavior completely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Move the pointer') and clarifies the two coordinate systems it accepts, which distinguishes it from click/drag siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies a selection condition: use desktop pixels normally, or image pixels when supplying the current view_id. That is useful routing context, but it never states when to choose move over desktop_drag or desktop_click, nor any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools