x11-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

desktop_info

Query screen size, workspace and window counts, focused window, and viewing options to inspect the headless X11 desktop state.

Instructions

Screen size, workspaces (* = shown, (n) = window count), focused window and how the user can watch.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "desktop_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether a refresh or active connection is required, latency, or whether it is a passive read. The legend alias "* = shown, (n) = window count" is the only useful added detail, and it is marginal.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is one short sentence and front-loads the data fields, but the compression comes at the cost of ambiguity: "how the user can watch" is unclear, and the parenthetical legend interrupts the field list. Brevity here is under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists and there are no parameters, so the agent's informational needs are modest and the field list roughly maps what is returned. However, the unclear "how the user can watch" clause and the absence of any usage or read-safety context leave it only minimally adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4, and nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs. The schema is empty, so there is no ambiguity for the agent to resolve.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It's a noun-phrase list of the data fields returned (screen size, workspaces, focused window), giving an agent a reasonable guess that this reads desktop state. But it lacks a verb and any explicit statement like "returns the current desktop layout," and the final clause "how the user can watch" is too cryptic to tell which sibling it differs from.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance about when to call this versus list_windows, view_workspace, or screenshot is given. The description only enumerates data fields and never states a use condition or exclusion.

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