Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Linux Agent Desktop

Linux Agent Desktop

by aShanki
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

desktop_discover

Read-only

Lists a task’s owned windows and their coordinate space, enabling agents to target the correct desktop elements.

Instructions

List this task's owned windows and coordinate space; action_id is a unique request identifier.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "action_id": "<action_id>"
    },
    "name": "desktop_discover"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
action_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's main addition is that results are scoped to 'this task's' windows. It does not say whether discovery is required before desktop_action or whether results change over a task's lifetime, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The terseness costs some clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a tool requiring both task_id and action_id with zero schema documentation, the description should do more: define the coordinate space, explain task_id's role, and position discovery relative to desktop_action.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains action_id only as 'a unique request identifier' without stating the purpose (deduplication/idempotency) or format, and task_id is never explained beyond the phrase 'this task's'.

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: lists this task's owned windows and coordinate space. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like desktop_screenshot or desktop_result, but 'coordinate space' is unexplained jargon that leaves the payload partly opaque.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus desktop_tasks, desktop_capabilities, or desktop_screenshot, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the implied need for a task_id. The agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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