Skip to main content
Glama

Get Active Window

get_active_window
Read-only

Inspect the currently focused foreground window on Windows and return its title, process name, PID, and screen boundaries to identify the app in use.

Instructions

Inspect the currently focused foreground window on Windows desktop. Returns the window title, process name, PID, and screen boundaries.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_active_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the description's 'Inspect' adds little on the safety axis. It does add the platform constraint (Windows desktop), which is useful behavior-level context, but says nothing about what is returned when no window is focused or whether elevated processes are visible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then the return payload. No filler and nothing to trim.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no parameters, an output schema, and a single read-only annotation, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is the edge case of no focused window or failure behavior, which is minor given the output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the currently focused foreground window on Windows desktop.' The scope word 'currently focused' distinguishes it in spirit from list_open_windows, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by 'currently focused foreground window' — an agent can infer this is for the single active window rather than enumerating all windows, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative.

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