mcp-mac-control

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List windows

list_windows

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the frontmost app's windows with name, position, and size to enable reliable clicking and dragging. Requires Accessibility permission.

Instructions

List the windows of the frontmost app with each window's name, position and size — so you can click or drag reliably. Needs Accessibility permission for the host process.

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": "list_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the Accessibility permission requirement and restricting scope to the frontmost app.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource, the returned fields, the practical benefit, and the permission prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, strong read-only annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It names the output fields, scope, and prerequisite.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead explains the operation's output and scope, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('windows of the frontmost app'), and additionally names the data returned: name, position, and size. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_apps and get_frontmost_app.

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 phrase 'so you can click or drag reliably' gives clear situational context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous enough.

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