Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agy_computer_use.mcp_server

agy_computer_use.mcp_server

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cu_click

Dispatches mouse clicks, double-clicks, right-clicks, moves, and drags on a normalized 0–1000 grid for native desktop automation.

Instructions

Dispatch mouse click, double_click, right_click, move, or drag on [0..1000] grid.

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_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
norm_xNoX on [0..1000] grid.
norm_yNoY on [0..1000] grid.
dry_runNoSynthesize without OS dispatch.
mark_idNoOptional SoM mark ID.
action_typeNoPointer action type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals OS-level dispatching and normalized coordinates, but omits permission needs, side effects, destructive potential, dry_run behavior, failure modes, and return semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes: action type, available actions, and coordinate grid.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a five-parameter tool whose schema is fully described, but without annotations or an output schema the description should disclose side effects and dry_run behavior. Those behavioral details are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by enumerating allowed action values despite action_type lacking an enum in the schema, and it confirms the [0..1000] coordinate semantics; mark_id and dry_run are left to the schema.

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, 'Dispatch', and the mouse-action resource with examples: click, double_click, right_click, move, drag. It clearly separates pointer actions from keyboard/scroll siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 action list implies use for mouse-pointer interactions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as cu_scroll or cu_bg_dispatch. The agent must infer boundaries from sibling names.

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