Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Handy

Handy

by miisodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Check Handy Status & Permission Toggle

handy_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether Handy permission is ON or OFF and report the active native OS backend, connected monitor dimensions, active window, and current mouse position when enabled.

Instructions

Check whether Handy permission is currently ON or OFF, which native OS backend is active, connected monitor dimensions, active window, and current mouse position (when enabled).

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": "handy_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not repeat it. What the description adds is the value annotations cannot supply: the concrete set of runtime facts returned, plus the conditional "(when enabled)" caveat signaling some fields may be absent. It does not describe output shape or failure behavior, but with no output schema the enumeration carries most of the load.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the permission check and then lists the additional data points. Every item earns its place because there is no output schema documenting the return fields. The dense comma-separated enumeration is efficient, though a light structure would scan faster.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description must define the return contents, and it does enumerate them for this zero-parameter read-only tool. Minor gaps remain in format detail: units for monitor dimensions, what backend identifiers look like, and when exactly mouse position is omitted. For a status probe these are small omissions rather than blocking ones.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema description coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is unambiguous. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ("Check") and resource ("Handy permission ... status") and enumerates exactly what the response reports: permission state, native OS backend, monitor dimensions, active window, mouse position. An agent knows precisely what this tool returns without opening anything. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting with handy_permission, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus handy_permission, handy_see, or handy_act. Usage is only implied by the nature of a status read, and the parenthetical "(when enabled)" hints that some fields are conditional on configuration. That is enough to infer intent but not enough to route confidently between siblings.

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