Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agy_computer_use.mcp_server

agy_computer_use.mcp_server

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cu_capture_som

Captures a screen frame, extracts UIA controls, and renders a Set-of-Marks overlay for visual grounding.

Instructions

Capture screen frame, extract UIA controls, and render Set-of-Marks overlay.

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": "cu_capture_som"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNoFrame width in pixels.
heightNoFrame height in pixels.
max_elementsNoMax UIA elements.
synthetic_seedNoOptional seed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It lists the capture/extract/render sequence but omits whether the overlay is returned or saved, what permissions or desktop-session requirements exist, whether any side effects occur, and what the return shape is.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted phrasing. It efficiently communicates the tool's multi-step behavior.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return behavior and operational constraints more fully. It covers the three actions but leaves key invocation details—output format, persistence of the overlay, and environment requirements—unstated.

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?

All four optional parameters have complete schema descriptions already, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 names three concrete operations and the resource involved: screen frame capture, UIA control extraction, and Set-of-Marks overlay rendering. This is specific enough to distinguish it from action siblings like cu_click and cu_type, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from cu_bg_capture or cu_find_anchor.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cu_bg_capture or cu_find_anchor, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the operation sequence.

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