Skip to main content
Glama

desktop_choose

Select an option from a list, radio, combo, or table cell on the Linux desktop and verify the selection. Handles extended ranges and exclusive or preserving selections, ensuring the chosen item is applied correctly.

Instructions

Choose an observed list/radio/combo option or a visible table cell and verify selection. A table cell selects its whole row. Successful results verify selection only, including already-selected results. If selection alone was requested, stop. Otherwise verify the requested application effect; some controls apply on selection. If the effect did not occur, inspect for an advertised activation action or Apply/Open control, use it, then verify the outcome. Default makes the choice exclusive; extend preserves other list or table-row selections. Scroll offscreen rows into view and inspect again; reacquire after sorting/filtering. Open collapsed options and inspect first. range_end_id selects an inclusive range of at most 50 visible list items or table rows, using two endpoints from the same inspection; reversed endpoints are allowed. Every intermediate item must be inspected in unchanged order, and table endpoints use the same column. extend adds the range; otherwise it replaces the selection. Duplicate range labels, unsupported providers and unloaded gaps are refused. List replacement verifies one clear then each addition; an already exact set is unchanged. Limits: 50 range items and 500 selected items. Selection step receipts are historical verification, never instructions to retry a remainder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
extendNo
element_idYes
range_end_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses exclusive vs. extend behavior, whole-row selection for table cells, already-selected results, activation fallback, offscreen scrolling, reacquisition after sorting/filtering, range endpoint rules, hard limits, and receipt semantics. This is model transparency beyond what the schema could convey.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and organized in a logical sequence from verification, to activation fallback, to range semantics, to limits. Given the tool's complexity, most sentences earn their place; a few clauses are dense and slightly redundant, so it is not optimally concise.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema documentation, so the description must provide nearly all context. It covers verification semantics, application-effect handling, range behavior, error/refusal cases, limits, and the meaning of receipts. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It thoroughly explains extend, range_end_id, default exclusivity, range inversion, and the 50-item cap. The required element_id is implied as the observed list/radio/combo/table-cell reference, but it is never explicitly tied to an inspection-provided identifier, leaving a small semantic gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Choose an observed list/radio/combo option or a visible table cell and verify selection.' This clearly communicates the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling desktop_select or other selection-related tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives extensive procedural guidance once the tool is chosen, such as verifying effects and handling Apply/Open controls, but it never states when to choose this tool instead of desktop_select, desktop_invoke, or desktop_set_value. The intended use case is implied by the opening line but alternatives and exclusions are not mentioned.

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