Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Find Windows By Process

find_windows_by_process

Locate windows owned by a specific process ID or process-name substring to identify the GUI windows tied to a running application for debugging or inspection.

Instructions

Find windows owned by a pid or process-name substring.

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": {
      "name_or_pid": "<name_or_pid>"
    },
    "name": "find_windows_by_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
name_or_pidYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, whether a numeric string is treated as a pid), permissions, or behavior when nothing matches. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'find'.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 lookup with an output schema that documents return values, the definition covers the essentials but leaves matching rules and failure behavior unspecified. An agent could call it, but not predict exactly what comes back for partial or numeric inputs.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the single parameter, and it does: the value is either a pid or a process-name substring, which adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. The unresolved ambiguity is how a numeric-looking string is disambiguated between the two modes.

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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (windows) plus the scoping key (owned by a pid or process-name substring), which implicitly separates it from find_windows_by_title. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, even though find_windows_by_title and list_windows are obvious siblings an agent must choose between. The selection criteria (pid or process name rather than title) is only implied by the object of the verb.

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