x11-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tile_windows

Arrange normal workspace windows into columns, rows, or a grid to organize an X11 desktop, leaving dialogs and minimized windows untouched.

Instructions

Arrange the normal windows of a workspace (default: the shown one) side by side.

columns: next to each other; rows: stacked; grid: rows of up to ceil(sqrt(n)). Windows go in the order they were opened. Dialogs and minimized windows are left alone.

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": "tile_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`layout`	No		columns
`workspace`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses layout algorithms, window ordering, default workspace behavior, and excluded windows, but does not state whether windows are moved or resized, whether the change is reversible, or other side effects/failure modes.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: the main action comes first, followed by concise layout definitions and constraints. Every sentence adds operational information without repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given only two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: layout meanings, default workspace, and which windows are affected or excluded. The main missing piece is explicit disclosure of side effects for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates for the layout parameter by mapping columns, rows, and grid to concrete arrangements. It also clarifies the workspace parameter by saying it defaults to the shown workspace.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource: arrange normal windows of a workspace side by side. The scope and layout definitions clearly separate it from single-window siblings such as move_resize_window, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied for tiling windows, with useful details about the default workspace and that dialogs/minimized windows are excluded. It does not state when to choose this tool over move_resize_window or window_action, nor does it give broader when-not guidance.

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