Skip to main content
Glama
mario-andreschak

MCP Windows Desktop Automation

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP Windows Desktop Automation

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Windows GUI automation MCP server for Claude Code, enabling deterministic desktop app control via 32 tools including window management, input, pixel search, and file verification, leveraging the AutoIt backend.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that gives any AI full control over a Windows PC, enabling application control, mouse/keyboard automation, screen capture, browser automation, and more.
      59 PyPI
      6
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that gives AI assistants full control over native Windows applications — launch, inspect, click, type, screenshot, and test any WinUI3, WPF, WinForms, UWP, or Win32 app.
      72 npm
      42
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables Windows GUI automation through the Model Context Protocol, providing tools, workflows, and generative capabilities for natural language-driven interaction with desktop applications.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A lean local Windows automation server providing tools for mouse and keyboard control, screenshot capture, and process management. It enables programmatic interaction with the Windows desktop environment through the Model Context Protocol.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Windows control server for the Model Context Protocol, enabling programmatic control of mouse, keyboard, window management, screen capture, and clipboard operations to allow AI models to interact with and automate Windows desktops.
      80 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    C2.7/5.0

    Scored across 51 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Most tools map to distinct AutoIt functions, but autoItSetOption and opt appear to overlap, and boilerplate descriptions offer no differentiation between similar operations like run/runWait/runAs/runAsWait or processWait/processWaitClose. An agent must rely on AutoIt domain knowledge to select correctly.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools use lowerCamelCase, and most follow a noun+verb pattern (e.g., mouseGetPos, winActivate, controlClick). Minor deviations exist such as takeScreenshot (verb+noun) and bare verbs (send, run, shutdown), but casing is consistent throughout.

    Tool Count1/5

    With 51 tools, the surface is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and approaches the rubric's extreme mismatch threshold. Many wrappers are granular (mouseDown/mouseUp, winWait variants, processWait variants), forcing agents to sort through a large set for basic automation.

    Completeness3/5

    Core areas like mouse, keyboard, window, control, process, run, clipboard, and screenshot are covered, enabling many direct automation workflows. However, discovery/enumeration tools (e.g., listing windows, processes, or controls) and pixel/image search are absent, leaving notable dead ends when target identifiers are unknown.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues