desktop-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drag

Simulate a press-move-release mouse action by specifying start and end points for selecting text, moving windows, or adjusting sliders.

Instructions

Press at one point, move, and release at another.

Use for selecting text, moving windows, and dragging sliders.

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": {
      "from_x": "<from_x>",
      "from_y": "<from_y>",
      "to_x": "<to_x>",
      "to_y": "<to_y>"
    },
    "name": "drag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`to_x`	Yes
`to_y`	Yes
`button`	No	left
`from_x`	Yes
`from_y`	Yes
`screenshot`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes only the physical gesture and does not mention what the tool returns (despite a 'screenshot' parameter defaulting to true), whether the action is reversible, or any side effects on the UI. This is a significant gap for a tool that manipulates the system state.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the essential action. It is appropriately concise with no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It omits coordinate conventions, button values, and return behavior, leaving the agent with too many unknowns to call the tool reliably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. It does not clarify the coordinate system (screen vs window-relative), units, the meaning of the 'button' parameter, or the 'screenshot' parameter. An agent has to guess these crucial details.

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 clearly states the drag action (press, move, release) and provides concrete use cases (selecting text, moving windows, dragging sliders), which sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like click and move. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for selecting text, moving windows, and dragging sliders') that tell the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so some inference is required, but the guidance is still clear enough.

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

Deploy Server