Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WpfVisualTreeMcp

WpfVisualTreeMcp

by faze79
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

wpf_get_bindings

Retrieve all data bindings for a UI element and their current status. Diagnose binding errors and data context issues in running WPF applications.

Instructions

Get all data bindings for an element with their status

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": {
      "element_handle": "<element_handle>"
    },
    "name": "wpf_get_bindings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
element_handleYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation and mentions 'status', but lacks details on output format, potential size, or performance impact. Not contradictory but minimal.

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?

Single sentence conveying the core functionality with no waste; front-loaded information.

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?

For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description tells what it does but not what the output looks like or how to use the parameter, leaving gaps.

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?

The only parameter 'element_handle' is not described in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain how to obtain or format it, leaving ambiguity.

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 'get', the resource 'data bindings', and specifies 'for an element' and 'with their status', distinguishing it from siblings like wpf_get_binding_errors and wpf_get_data_context.

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 versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., element must exist), or conditions under which it should not be used.

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