Skip to main content
Glama

system_list_windows

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists visible macOS window metadata so AI agents can inspect open windows and titles; title access may require Screen Recording permission.

Instructions

List visible window metadata; titles require Screen Recording permission on some macOS versions. [v1.0.0; permissions: screenRecording]

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": "system_list_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
toolYestool name
errorYes
statusYes
versionYessemantic version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: a prerequisite permission (Screen Recording) that gates whether window titles are populated on some macOS versions. It does not describe scope limitations such as only visible/minimized windows or ordering.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the permission caveat that directly affects output reliability. The bracketed version/permission tag is slightly noisy but carries real prerequisite information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not needed. For a zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose and the key permission prerequisite; only explicit routing to sibling tools is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument listing operation and adds the permission-dependent behavior of the title field, which is meaningful even without parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List visible window metadata'), which is clearly distinct from the single-window sibling system_get_active_window and from system_list_apps. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate scope, but the 'list all windows' intent is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as system_get_active_window for a single window or system_list_apps for applications. The only conditional context is a permission caveat, not a selection rule.

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