Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
computer-use

computer-use

by Cassius-stack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

permissions

Check macOS Accessibility and Screen Recording access, then trigger system prompts to request missing TCC approval when needed.

Instructions

Check or request macOS Accessibility and Screen Recording TCC permissions.

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": "permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestNoIf true, trigger macOS system permission prompt(s) for missing permissions.
prompt_accessibilityNoPrompt for Accessibility access when request=true (default true).
prompt_screen_captureNoPrompt for Screen Recording access when request=true (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important side effect — that it can 'request' permissions, i.e., trigger macOS system prompt(s) — but says nothing about how the check mode reports status, that granting requires manual user action in System Settings, whether a restart is needed for Accessibility grants to take effect, or what the call returns.

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 zero filler, and the check/request duality leads. It is perhaps overly terse for a tool that can spawn OS dialogs, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 no-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose primary mode is 'check', the description leaves the entire return value unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it gets booleans per permission, a status string, or nothing. It also omits the practical consequence of requesting (user must approve in System Settings, possible restart), so an agent may misuse the request mode.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description only reinforces the check-vs-request distinction and adds no formatting, sequencing, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb pair ('Check or request') and a precise resource ('macOS Accessibility and Screen Recording TCC permissions'), which no sibling tool overlaps with. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like cursor_control or js that depend on these permissions.

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?

The 'check or request' phrasing implies the two modes, and the schema's request flag clarifies the switch, but the description never states when an agent should call this — e.g., before attempting screen/window automation if a permission error occurred. No when-not guidance and no mention of the dependent sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools