Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bad-ass-mcp

bad-ass-mcp

by HoldMyBeer-gg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_sequence

Execute a list of desktop GUI actions server-side in one call to avoid round-trips; return per-step results and stop at the first failure by default.

Instructions

Execute a list of actions server-side in a single call — no round-trips.

Each step is a dict with an "action" key plus action-specific fields: {"action": "click", "handle": "..."} {"action": "click_at", "x": 100.0, "y": 200.0, "window_id": null} {"action": "type", "handle": "...", "text": "..."} {"action": "key", "key": "Return"} {"action": "select", "handle": "...", "value": "..."} {"action": "get_value", "handle": "..."} {"action": "get_bounds", "handle": "..."} → value [x, y, w, h] or null {"action": "drag", "from_handle": "...", "to_handle": "..."} (or from_x/from_y, to_x/to_y; or dx/dy from the start: drags a splitter a known distance) {"action": "sleep", "seconds": 0.15} {"action": "wait_for_element", "window_id": "...", "role": "...", "name": "...", "state": "...", "timeout": 5.0} {"action": "wait_for_window", "pattern": "...", "timeout": 5.0}

Returns a list of per-step results. Stops at first failure unless stop_on_error is False.

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": {
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "run_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYes
stop_on_errorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical failure semantics: 'Stops at first failure unless stop_on_error is False', plus that a list of per-step results is returned and that get_bounds yields [x, y, w, h] or null. It does not state that already-executed steps are not rolled back on failure, which matters for a mutation-heavy tool, nor anything about permissions or timing.

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?

A one-line purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by a dense per-action reference with no filler prose. Every line conveys schema information or behavior not available elsewhere, so the length is earned.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped steps parameter, the description covers action format, failure behavior, and return shape. The one meaningful gap is what the per-step result objects contain on failure and whether prior steps' side effects persist.

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 coverage is 0% and the steps array is untyped (items: {}), so the description must define the payload — and it does, enumerating each action key with its fields, coordinate alternatives for drag, and defaults like sleep seconds and wait timeouts. This is meaning that exists nowhere else in the structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The definition gives a specific verb and resource ('Execute a list of actions server-side') and immediately distinguishes itself from the single-action siblings by emphasizing 'in a single call — no round-trips'. An agent can tell this is the batch counterpart to click/drag/type_text without inspecting any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'single call — no round-trips' framing clearly communicates the batching context in which this tool beats repeated sibling calls. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of N separate calls when the sequence is deterministic' statement or any when-not guidance (e.g. interactive steps that depend on intermediate inspection).

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