Provides a list of open application windows including ID, title, class, geometry, and active state. Use again after windows open or close to get updated data; do not rely on cached IDs.
List app windows: id, title, class, geometry and active state. Re-list after windows open/close; do not cache IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3v1.0.3v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: the description instructs agents to re-list after windows open/close, implying the output changes with external world events, but the annotation openWorldHint=false explicitly declares the tool's output is not affected by world changes. This is a direct contradiction with the description's stated behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the action and output fields; the second gives a critical caching caveat. Information density is high and the key behavioral note is placed at the end without burying the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned fields and warns about ID stability. However, the contradiction with openWorldHint leaves the expectations about world dynamics ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input. The description need not add parameter detail; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List app windows' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, class, geometry, active state). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like glass_select_window (which selects) and glass_a11y_snapshot (which captures accessibility data) without needing to open schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides actionable guidance: 'Re-list after windows open/close; do not cache IDs.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool again and warns against reusing stale window IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context for correct usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.