Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Raycast MCP Server

Raycast MCP Server

by ExpertVagabond
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

raycast_window

Control Raycast window behavior by showing, hiding, toggling, or focusing it. Automate window visibility to streamline your workflow.

Instructions

Control Raycast window behavior

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "raycast_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesWindow action to perform

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 burden. It says only 'Control', leaving unclear whether these actions mutate visible UI state, require an active app, or have side effects on focus. For a state-changing window tool this is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a one-parameter enum tool with no output schema, minimum viability is nearly met, but the description omits any when-to-use context or behavioral detail that an agent would need to route correctly among eight sibling tools.

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 100% and the single `action` parameter is a fully enumerated field, so the schema already documents the accepted values. The description adds nothing beyond restating the window theme, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The verb 'Control' plus resource 'Raycast window' identifies the domain, but 'behavior' is vague and the description never names the specific operations (show/hide/toggle/focus) that the schema carries. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like raycast_system or raycast_open.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus raycast_open, raycast_system, or the other window-adjacent siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as Raycast being running. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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