Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Inkra MCP

Inkra MCP

by juergenkoller-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

window_info

Returns the current window state, including size, position, and active view. Helps verify window context before performing document actions.

Instructions

Returns the current app state

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": "window_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Returns' data, implying a read operation without side effects, but gives no details on the nature of the returned data (e.g., if it's instantaneous, if it requires permissions, or what format). Minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise and contains no filler, but could benefit from a bit more context without losing brevity.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. 'Current app state' is too vague to fully understand what the agent will receive. More details on the structure of the returned state are needed.

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 no parameters, making schema coverage complete. The description adds no parameter details (none needed). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adequately handles this by not adding extraneous info.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current app state'. While it's clear, it could be more precise about what constitutes 'app state' (e.g., window dimensions, focus). No sibling tools overlap, so no confusion.

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. Although there are no similar sibling tools, the absence of any usage context (e.g., 'Use when you need to know the active window or screen size') reduces clarity for the agent.

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