Wayland MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Execute Action

execute_action

Run single or chained mouse and keyboard actions to automate Wayland desktop tasks, including clicks, typing, scrolling, dragging, and key presses.

Instructions

Execute system actions with chaining support. Handles both single actions and chained sequences. Args: action: Action string in format: Single: "prefix:params" (e.g. "click:100,200") Chain: "chain:action1;action2" (e.g. "chain:click:100,200;type:hello") Supported Actions: type:text - Type text press:key - Press key click/click: - Click at current position (both formats supported) move_to:x,y - Move to absolute coordinates (default) move_to:rel:x,y - Move relative to current position drag:x1,y1:x2,y2 - Drag between points scroll:amount - Vertical scroll (positive=up, negative=down) Note: Each unit = 1 scroll notch (120 = high-def scroll). Typical: 15-120. scroll:horizontal:amount - Horizontal scroll Note: Each unit = 1 scroll notch (120 = high-def scroll). Typical: 15-120. Returns: dict: {'success': bool, 'error': str}

Declared as a dict because that is what every code path returns. It was
annotated -> bool while returning dicts, and a strict MCP client rejects the
structured content against the declared schema, so the tool was unusable
from a conforming client.

Example: execute_action("click:100,200") execute_action("chain:click:100,200;type:hello;press:Enter")

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it documents the return shape ({'success': bool, 'error': str}), discloses chaining semantics, per-action behavior, and even scroll unit semantics (120 = high-def notch, typical 15-120). It omits any statement about side effects, reversibility, or whether actions are destructive, which for an input-simulation tool would be useful, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a well-organized action reference and example. It is long but most lines earn their place as a DSL reference. The 'Declared as a dict... strict MCP client rejects' paragraph is a meta-note about a past annotation bug rather than agent-facing invocation guidance, which costs a point.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete for invocation: format, actions, units, and examples are all covered. The remaining gap is selection context against the many overlapping siblings, which for a tool of this complexity an agent would benefit from.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is a single 'action' parameter, yet the description fully compensates: it defines the string format for single vs chained actions, enumerates every supported action with its argument syntax, and gives concrete examples. This is meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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 clear verb+resource ('Execute system actions with chaining support') and even scopes the tool as a general action executor that handles both single and chained sequences. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like click_mouse, move_mouse, drag_mouse, and scroll_mouse, which cover the very same underlying actions the DSL exposes. An agent cannot tell from the description why it should route to this general tool versus the specific sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied through examples ('execute_action("click:100,200")') and the format spec. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, and critically no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the overlapping click_mouse / drag_mouse / scroll_mouse siblings. The reader must infer the choice from the action list.

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

Deploy Server