Lists active desktop windows with titles, focus state, and bounds. Filters by title or class, and paginates results with counts and next offset for fresh snapshots.
List window identities, titles, focus and client bounds, optionally filtering title/class. Returns counts, unavailable rows and next_offset when paginated. Each call is a fresh enumeration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 50,
+ "title": "Limit",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Query"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is structured. The description adds value by disclosing that each call is a fresh enumeration and that results include counts, unavailable rows, and next_offset when paginated. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, then return characteristics, then behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers enough: what is returned, optional filter, pagination signals, and fresh enumeration. It could be more explicit on limit/offset mechanics, but is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by explaining that the query filters by title/class and that limit/offset relate to pagination via next_offset. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter's semantics or the default behavior.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('window identities, titles, focus and client bounds') and states the optional filtering by title/class. This clearly distinguishes it from singular desktop_window by indicating a multi-window enumeration scope.
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?
The description provides clear context: it lists window details, supports filtering, and returns pagination info. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like desktop_window or desktop_status, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.