Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tui-mcp

tui-mcp

by nvms
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Send Mouse Event

send_mouse

Send mouse events to terminal user interface applications by specifying coordinates, actions, and buttons for automated testing and interaction.

Instructions

Send a mouse event to the TUI app (if the app has mouse support enabled).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "send_mouse"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesSession ID
actionYesMouse action type
xYesColumn position (0-based)
yYesRow position (0-based)
buttonNoMouse button: "left", "middle", "right" for press/release; "up", "down" for scroll (default: "left")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite of mouse support but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the app lacks mouse support. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with an application.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key usage condition. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of sending input events to an application, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error responses), output format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the interaction between 'action' and 'button' or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('send a mouse event') and target ('to the TUI app'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'send_keys' or 'send_text' that also send input events, missing full differentiation.

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?

The description provides some contextual guidance by mentioning 'if the app has mouse support enabled', which implies a prerequisite condition for usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_keys' or 'send_text', nor does it provide exclusions or clear comparative guidance.

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