x11-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drag

Press the mouse at (x1, y1), move it in steps to (x2, y2), and release to simulate a held-button pointer movement on an X11 desktop.

Instructions

Press at (x1, y1), move to (x2, y2) in steps, release.

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": {
      "x1": "<x1>",
      "y1": "<y1>",
      "x2": "<x2>",
      "y2": "<y2>"
    },
    "name": "drag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`x1`	Yes
`x2`	Yes
`y1`	Yes
`y2`	Yes
`button`	No	left

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the press-move-release sequence and that movement happens 'in steps,' which is useful beyond a bare name. However it omits which mouse button is held (the button parameter and its default), timing/step semantics, and any side effects of the drag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the compactness contributes to the missing detail rather than balancing it.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 5-parameter GUI automation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves the button parameter, coordinate system, and step behavior unexplained. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so titles like 'X1' and 'Y1' provide no meaning. The description successfully maps x1/y1 to the press point and x2/y2 to the release point, adding real semantics. It ignores the button parameter entirely and does not specify the coordinate origin (screen vs. window).

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?

States a specific action sequence (press at x1,y1, move to x2,y2, release), which is clearly a drag and distinct from siblings click and mouse_move. It does not name or contrast with those alternatives, but the mechanics make the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use drag versus click, mouse_move, or window_action. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for drag-and-drop rather than simple movement.

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