nvda-mcp server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run an NVDA command

nvda_run_script

Destructive

Run an NVDA command by script name without pressing its assigned key, then report the speech NVDA produces so you can verify the result.

Instructions

Run an NVDA command by name, as if its key were pressed, then report what NVDA said.

This works whatever keys the user has assigned. Commands that pass their key on to the application cannot do so, since no key was pressed. Needs key presses to be allowed, like nvda_press_keys.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The command's script name from nvda_list_scripts, such as 'reportCurrentFocus' or 'dateTime'.
`record`	No	Also record what this action changed: how the accessibility tree around it changed (controls added, removed, renamed or moved, values and states) and the events NVDA handled. NVDA is silent for up to a few seconds while the tree is read. For something the user does, use nvda_trace_events with tree.
`settle_ms`	No	Stop listening once NVDA has been quiet this long.
`class_name`	No	Only the command defined by this class, when several define the same name, such as 'GlobalCommands'.
`timeout_ms`	No	Stop listening, or waiting for until_speech, after this long in total.
`until_speech`	No	Keep listening until NVDA says something containing this text (ignoring case), such as 'sent' or a dialog title, instead of stopping at the first pause. The result says whether it was heard.
`record_within`	No	Record only inside this control, an id from nvda_find_objects, such as a chat's message list. Implies record. By default the web document or window around the action is recorded.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the permission prerequisite, the side effect of reporting NVDA's speech, and the failure mode for key-forwarding commands, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before caveats, and every sentence carries a distinct fact (mechanism, key-independence, key-forwarding failure mode, permission requirement). Nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still tells the agent that NVDA's speech is reported. For a destructive, 7-parameter tool it is nearly complete; a brief note on what happens if the script name is not found would close the remaining gap.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including cross-tool routing for 'record' (nvda_trace_events) and 'record_within' (ids from nvda_find_objects). The description only adds the notion of the name coming from nvda_list_scripts and of speech being reported, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run an NVDA command by name') and immediately explains the mechanism ('as if its key were pressed, then report what NVDA said'), which separates it from nvda_press_keys and nvda_speak without opening 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?

It explains the key usage context (works regardless of the user's key bindings) and names a hard precondition ('Needs key presses to be allowed, like nvda_press_keys'), plus a limitation: commands that forward their key to the application cannot work. It does not explicitly say when to prefer nvda_press_keys instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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