Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-win-toast

mcp-win-toast

by ShigeruWakida
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

show_dialog

Display a native Windows dialog box with a title and message, requiring user acknowledgment via the OK button.

Instructions

Windows標準のOKボタン付きダイアログボックスを表示します

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "show_dialog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesダイアログのタイトル
messageYesダイアログのメッセージ本文

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a dialog is displayed with an OK button, but omits details like whether the dialog is modal, whether it blocks execution, or what happens after the button is clicked.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence in Japanese that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, though a bit more structure could improve readability.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool does, but does not explain return values or interaction behavior. For a dialog tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both 'title' and 'message'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool displays a Windows standard dialog box with an OK button. It specifies the verb (display) and resource (dialog box). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'show_toast', though the context implies a difference.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'show_toast'. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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