qt-mcp

by cristopulos

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: file operations (move, create_directory, read_file, write_file, etc.) are separate from screen capture tools (list_windows, capture_window, capture_region) and Qt widget tools (capture_widget, list_capturable_widgets, attach_status). There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_directory, list_windows, read_file). However, a few deviate: 'delete' is a single verb, and 'file_info' is noun_noun. Overall the pattern is mostly consistent and intuitive.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is slightly above the typical range but still well-scoped for the server's three domains (file management, screen capture, Qt widget capture). The count is justified and not excessive.
Completeness4/5
File operations cover create, read, update, delete, list, search, and move—nearly complete lifecycle. Screen capture tools provide listing and capture. Qt widget tools offer listing and capture but lack interaction beyond capture, which is acceptable given the server's focus.
Average 4.1/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like error handling, symlink resolution, and side effects. It only lists returned fields, omitting critical behavior (e.g., behavior on non-existent paths).
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and bullet-style return fields. No wasted words, clear structure.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness: return field details (e.g., permissions format, types), error scenarios, and behavior for symlinks are missing. Simple tool but still incomplete.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the 'path' parameter (e.g., format, absolute vs relative, allowed values). Fails to compensate for missing schema.
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 tool returns metadata for a file, directory, or symlink. It specifies the verb 'Return' and resource 'metadata', distinguishing it from siblings like read_file (content) and list_directory (directory contents).
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., read_file for content, list_directory for listing). Missing context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a PNG image, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, read-only nature, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately sized but includes an Args section which is atypical for tool descriptions. It could be more concise by integrating the parameter info naturally into the prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions the PNG return type. It covers prerequisites but lacks information about error handling, performance, or additional context needed for a complete understanding.
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 only parameter 'widget_name' is explained as the widget's objectName with guidance on discovering valid names via 'list_capturable_widgets'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Widget Name' title. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.
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 verb 'capture', the resource 'Qt widget', and the method 'objectName via the proxy agent'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'capture_window' and 'capture_region' by specifying widget-specific targetting.
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?
Prerequisites are explicitly listed (Qt application with start_agent, connected to Unix domain socket). It directs users to 'list_capturable_widgets' for valid names. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'capture_window'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes coordinate modes and return type. No annotation provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on edge cases (e.g., out-of-bounds) or side effects, but captures the essential behavior.
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?
Well-structured with Args section. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but somewhat lengthy due to detailed parameter descriptions; no wasted sentences.
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?
For a capture tool with no output schema, it explains input parameters and return type. Missing some edge cases but adequate given simplicity. No annotations to offset gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description fully explains all 5 parameters, including the conditional behavior of x/y with title. Adds meaning beyond schema titles.
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?
Clearly states it captures a rectangular region as PNG. Differentiates from sibling tools by explaining coordinate system, but does not explicitly name alternatives for region vs window capture.
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?
Provides guidance for when to use the title parameter (offsets from window), and references list_windows for titles. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to capture_window/capture_widget.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that ~ is expanded, defaults are current directory and hidden off, and returns path/entries/count. However, it doesn't mention error handling, symlink behavior, or permission requirements. For a read operation, this is minimally adequate.
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?
Description is very concise: 6 lines with clear header, args section, and return section. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, description includes return structure (path, entries with name/path/type/size, count). For a simple listing tool, this is fairly complete. However, it could be more explicit about being immediate children only and not recursive. No mention of error cases.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must add meaning. It explains path's default and ~ expansion, and include_hidden's purpose ('Include dotfiles/dotdirs'). This adds significant value beyond bare schema types and defaults.
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?
Description clearly states 'List entries in a directory.' The verb 'list' and resource 'directory' are specific. Among siblings like 'list_windows' and 'search_glob', the purpose is unambiguous. Return format further clarifies.
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 explicit guidance on when to use list_directory vs alternatives like search_glob or file_info. Usage is implied but no exclusions or context provided. Could mention that for pattern-based searching, use search_glob.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the overwrite behavior and return values, but does not mention permissions, atomicity, or cross-filesystem behavior. Adequate but not rich.
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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear bullet-style for arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple file move tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors and return values. It is sufficient for basic use, though it could mention error conditions beyond overwrite.
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?
Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains each parameter (path, destination, overwrite) beyond the schema types. It adds meaning, though it lacks format details (e.g., absolute vs relative paths).
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 tool's purpose: 'Move or rename a file or directory.' This is a specific action on a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete, list, and read_file.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like copy (not a sibling) or delete. The description lacks context for choosing this tool in different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a directory and returns 'path, created, exists', but does not disclose error conditions, permissions, or side effects beyond creation.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by clear Args section and Returns. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and return values. It lacks edge cases or error handling but is sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'path' with tilde expansion and 'parents' with default and purpose, fully compensating for the schema gap.
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 'Create a directory.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and easily distinguishes from sibling tools like move, delete, list_directory, etc.
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?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks 'when-not', prerequisites, or context for selection, despite the existence of related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses recursive search, defaults, capping, context lines, and return fields. Minor omission: doesn't specify 'matches' format (line numbers/content).
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?
Single-sentence summary followed by bullet-like args. Each parameter earns its place, but could be tightened (e.g., remove 'required' note for pattern, since schema doesn't require it).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description's return fields are helpful. But lacks detail on 'matches' format and what 'truncated' indicates. Still covers core behavior and parameters adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 7 parameters are explained in description: path as directory/file, pattern as regex, include_hidden for dotfiles, file_glob as glob, case_sensitive, max_matches limit, context_lines. Adds meaning beyond schema (0% coverage).
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?
Clearly states 'Search file contents for a regex pattern (recursive)'. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_glob' (filenames) and is a specific verb+resource.
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?
Implied usage from name and description, but no explicit when-to-use vs siblings like 'search_glob' or 'list_directory'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effects of append and create_parents parameters, and mentions return fields. However, it does not cover edge cases like overwriting behavior for existing files (though append implies overwrite by default) or error conditions.
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 extremely concise, using one sentence for the action and a clean list of parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all aspects: action, parameters with semantics, and return values. It is complete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter's purpose (path expansion, content, append vs overwrite, create_parents). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the coverage gap.
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 'Write or append text to a file' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file. It explicitly states the two modes (write/append) and the target.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_file, move, delete). The description implies writing files, but does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, failure on multiple matches, exact option, return type (PNG), and that geometry is logged but not returned. Sufficient for a capture tool.
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?
Well-structured with Args section, no redundant sentences, concise yet informative.
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?
Covers return type (PNG), what is not returned, and multi-match behavior. No output schema, but description suffices for basic usage.
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?
Schema coverage 0%, so description must compensate. It explains title is a case-insensitive substring, use list_windows, and exact is a boolean for exact match. Adds meaning beyond schema types.
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 explicitly states 'Capture an entire window identified by its title', with clear distinction from siblings like capture_region, capture_widget, and list_windows.
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?
Describes when to use (capturing a window by title), suggests using list_windows to find candidates, and explains how to handle multiple matches (exact=True or more specific substring). No explicit when-not-to-use but adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses symlink behavior (unlink, target preserved) and recursion requirement for directories. Returns path and deletion status. Adequate for a simple tool.
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 concise paragraphs with Args and Returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers deletion behavior, symlinks, recursion, and return format. Missing error conditions but acceptable for a simple tool.
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?
Schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: path is explained with symlink detail, recursive is explained as required for directories. Adds value beyond schema.
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 it deletes a file or directory, with specific verb 'delete' and resource 'file or directory'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move' and 'create_directory' by being the deletion tool.
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?
Provides guidance on when to use the recursive flag and explains symlink behavior. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but gives enough context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return format and connection requirement, implying idempotent read operation. Could mention no side effects explicitly, but content is sufficient.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Provides return format in lieu of output schema. Given no parameters and no annotations, description is sufficiently complete for its simple function.
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?
No parameters; baseline 4. Description adds no parameter info as none exist, but this is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists objectNames of widgets in an attached Qt app, using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like capture_widget and list_windows by focusing on enumeration of widget names.
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?
Provides explicit prerequisite: requires Qt app running start_agent and connected via Unix domain socket. However, it does not directly compare with alternatives like capturing or listing windows, leaving some implicit when-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains paging behavior, return fields, and path conventions. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found) or potential performance issues with large files.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main action and then provides detailed parameter descriptions in a structured docstring format. Slightly verbose but well-organized.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists return fields, which is helpful. It covers paging and file path conventions, but lacks error behavior and encoding details. Still, it's adequate for a read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by detailing path expansion, offset 0 meaning first line, and limit default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 'Read a text file' and details the parameters for paging (limit, offset). This verb+resource pair is distinct from sibling tools like write_file, delete, or list_directory.
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?
The description implies usage for reading text files with paging support, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for binary files) or alternatives like list_directory for browsing. Still, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals recursive search, default path, hidden file inclusion, and result cap. Return values are listed. No contradictions or misleading statements.
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 concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list and Returns summary. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers all parameters and return fields. It could mention potential case-sensitivity or glob behavior specifics, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and providing concrete examples (e.g., 'Glob pattern, e.g. **/*.py'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 'Find files matching a glob pattern (recursive)', which immediately conveys the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_directory (which lists contents) and search_content (which searches file contents) by focusing on glob pattern matching.
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?
The description provides explicit pattern examples (e.g., **/*.py, *.txt) and notes recursive behavior, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Always works, no error,' which is a strong behavioral guarantee, and it completely specifies the return format including keys and types.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: first for purpose, second for reliability and usage hint, third for output format. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, behavioral characteristics, return value format, and a use case. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.
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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no param info. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds context about the tool's purpose and behavior beyond the empty schema.
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 tool checks whether a Qt app is attached via the proxy agent. It uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'attach status', and the unique purpose distinguishes it from all sibling tools which are file/window operations.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Useful for clients to poll,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not offer exclusion criteria or alternative tools, but given the tool's specific role, the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes scope ('visible top-level X11 windows') and output fields. Lacks mention of no side effects or permissions, but for a read-only listing this is sufficient.
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: first defines verb+resource, second gives usage guidance and output details. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words.
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?
For a listing tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and how it fits into workflows with sibling tools. No missing information.
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?
No parameters in schema (coverage 100%). Description focuses on output, which is appropriate since no input parameters exist. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 tool lists visible top-level X11 windows with specific fields (id, title, geometry). It distinguishes from siblings like capture_window and capture_region by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use this first to discover the exact window title you need for capture_window or capture_region', providing clear when-to-use guidance and connection to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![QT_mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cristopulos/QT_mcp_server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cristopulos/QT_mcp_server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![QT_mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cristopulos/QT_mcp_server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cristopulos/QT_mcp_server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cristopulos/QT_mcp_server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server