x11-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_until_idle

Block until the X11 screen stops redrawing (ignoring tiny updates like cursors), or a timeout occurs, to synchronize automation with a settled UI.

Instructions

Wait until nothing on screen has been redrawn for quiet_ms (or timeout seconds pass, max 60).

Each redrawn rectangle smaller than min_area square pixels (default about 20x20: blinking text cursors, small spinners) is ignored; min_area=0 counts every pixel.

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": "wait_until_idle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timeout`	No
`min_area`	No
`quiet_ms`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idle condition, the 60-second timeout cap, and how min_area filters small redraws, including min_area=0. It does not describe the outcome when timeout is reached, though an output schema exists to cover returns.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences; the first establishes the core wait condition and the second explains the min_area filter. No wasted prose, and the edge case min_area=0 is included compactly.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description gives the essential semantics for a correct call. It omits guidance about when to prefer this over sibling wait, but not the call mechanics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines timeout as seconds with a max of 60, min_area as square pixels with a 20x20-style default and special zero behavior, and ties quiet_ms to the redraw-free interval. That covers all three parameters, though quiet_ms's unit is only implied by its name.

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 operation, waiting for screen redraws to cease, and defines the quiet interval and timeout condition. It is more specific than a generic wait, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wait tool.

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?

The description never states when to use this instead of sibling wait, nor when not to use it. It implies a UI-settling scenario through the idle-redraw condition, but gives no explicit selection guidance or alternatives.

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