Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Onda MCP

Onda MCP

by mindfullabai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

onda_window_focus

Bring a specific Onda terminal window to the foreground, restoring it if minimized. Use after mounting a workspace remotely or to wake Onda from a background CLI subagent.

Instructions

Bring a specific main window to the foreground (restore if minimized, raise, focus). When windowId is omitted, focuses the primary window. Returns { success, windowId }. Use after mounting a workspace remotely, or to wake Onda from a background CLI subagent.

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": "onda_window_focus"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowIdNoTarget window id. Omit to focus the primary window.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect (restore/raise/focus), the parameter behavior (omit for primary), and the return shape. It doesn't mention potential side effects, but focusing a window is inherently non-destructive, so 4 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each with distinct value: action, parameter behavior, return value, and usage context. No wordiness.

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 1-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return value, and parameter behavior. Minor ambiguity about 'main window' and lack of error handling details keep it from a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with windowId already described as 'Target window id. Omit to focus the primary window.' The description restates this and adds 'main window' context, but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Bring a specific main window to the foreground' with specific behaviors (restore, raise, focus). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus panes, tabs, or workspaces by specifying window-level focus.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit use cases: 'Use after mounting a workspace remotely, or to wake Onda from a background CLI subagent.' It doesn't name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context is clear for window-focus scenarios, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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