Skip to main content
Glama
Takayuki-Ishimaru

AgentDeskLink

by Takayuki-Ishimaru
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to AgentDeskLink

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Tato Runtime

      ryanlcruz
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-speaking AI agents to operate a desktop and browser through structured UI inspection, mouse/keyboard gestures, tab-scoped browsing, and approved local screen recording with editing.
      3
      1
      MIT

    • open-use

      wyatt-liao
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to automate both web browsers and native desktop applications through a unified interface, supporting tasks like browsing, clicking, typing, and file clipboard operations via exposed MCP tools.
      1
      Apache 2.0

    • computer-mcp

      Tb3bhargav
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable AI agents to control Windows desktops through UI Automation element trees, native screenshots, app launching, batched action sequences, smart waits, and safety gates using normalized coordinates.
      MIT

    • Computer-Controller-Bridg

      Dobona
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI clients on Windows to control the local mouse, keyboard, and screen understanding via MCP stdio, allowing automated workflows like viewing the screen, locating elements, clicking, typing, and verifying results.
      1
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 16 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target distinct stages: discovery, target/app lifecycle, semantic observation, pixel capture, physical input, batch execution, task control, and session close. A few adjacent pairs exist—capture vs record, act vs execute, app vs applications—but their descriptions clarify mode, safety boundary, and scope.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tool names share the adl_ prefix and snake_case style, with no mixed casing conventions. The pattern is not strictly verb_noun throughout, since several are noun-only discovery/lifecycle tools such as adl_capabilities, adl_targets, adl_applications, adl_app, and adl_task.

    Tool Count4/5

    Sixteen tools is slightly above the ideal compact range, but each maps to a distinct capability or safety lifecycle stage. The count is reasonable for a safety-sensitive desktop/browser automation server, though capture vs record and act vs execute add some surface area.

    Completeness5/5

    The surface covers discovery, target/app lifecycle, open/observe, semantic and physical input, batch execution, waiting, task management, and session close. Missing capabilities like arbitrary JS, clipboard access, or unrestricted OS input appear to be intentional safety exclusions rather than gaps.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources