Screencast MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Capture Targets

list_targets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the desktop, monitors, and visible windows with a ready-to-use target string for capture tools. Filter by executable, title, or capturable-only to find the right capture target.

Instructions

List the desktop, monitors, and visible windows (topmost first, with capturability per backend). Each entry has a target string to pass as-is to capture tools; use it instead of guessing a title.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`exe`	No	Only list windows of this executable, e.g. 'Code.exe' or 'code'.
`titleContains`	No	Only list windows whose title contains this text (case-insensitive).
`capturableOnly`	No	Leave out windows neither backend can capture (minimized, off screen). Default false.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`windows`	Yes
`monitors`	Yes
`wgcAvailable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.47.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: ordering is topmost first, capturability is included per backend, and entries expose a pass-through `target` string.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed immediately by how to use the returned `target`. Every sentence contributes directly to selection or invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. With complete parameter documentation, annotations covering safety, and a clear statement of contents and intended use, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three filter parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already carries that information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource set: it lists desktop, monitors, and visible windows. It also clarifies the key output field (`target`) and how it relates to capture tools, which distinguishes it from sibling capture/manipulation tools.

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 gives clear usage guidance: pass the returned `target` as-is to capture tools and use this instead of guessing a title. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name a sibling alternative, but the intended workflow is clear.

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