Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Windows

list_windows

Retrieves all open X11 window details—ID, desktop, PID, geometry, WM class, and title—to identify and inspect active desktop windows via wmctrl.

Instructions

List all windows: id, desktop, pid, geometry, wm_class, title. X11 only (wmctrl).

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": "list_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses the platform constraint ('X11 only (wmctrl)'), which tells the agent the call will fail or return nothing under Wayland, but it doesn't state that the operation is a side-effect-free read or how failures surface.

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?

Two short clauses with zero waste: the operation and its fields first, the platform caveat second. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations do not, so the essentials are the operation, its fields, and the X11-only limitation, all of which are present. What's missing is the fallback path for Wayland/WM-less environments and confirmation of read-only behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing more is needed here; the field list describes output rather than input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all windows') and enumerates the returned fields (id, desktop, pid, geometry, wm_class, title), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with find_windows_by_process or find_windows_by_title, but 'all windows' implies an unfiltered enumeration.

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?

'List all windows' hints at the unfiltered case versus the find_windows_* siblings, but the description never names an alternative or a condition for choosing it. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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