Skip to main content
Glama
pironjulien

nexus-windows-codex

by pironjulien
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Act in the window

act
Destructive

Run up to 32 verified UI steps—click, type, select, or scroll—on a Windows app using its last observation, stopping at the first step whose postcondition fails.

Instructions

Steps on the window of the last look, in the background first (Win32 messages, UI Automation, DevTools for Chromium), the real mouse/keyboard only as a fallback under the shared foreground token. One step, or up to 32 each with its own expect; stops at the first step not verified. Per step: ✓ verified, = already done, ~ unknown (never replayed: look again), ✗ failed or refused.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.1.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / steps / items / description
      Previous value: -"One action on the last observation. kind: click (selector, or point + screenshotId of a native capture; button left|right|middle; count 1|2), setValue (selector, value), typeText (text; focus: selector), key (key: \"ctrl+s\", \"enter\"), select (selector, option), menu (path: \"File > Save\"), secondary (selector, action), scroll (point, screenshotId, scrollX, scrollY), drag (from, to, screenshotId). Optional: expect (postcondition), timeoutMs (0-15000), refresh (text|image|both), fallback (false forbids real mouse/keyboard), confirm and accord for sensitive actions (see the refusal)."New value: +"One action on the last observation. kind: click (selector, or point + screenshotId of a native capture; button left|right|middle; count 1|2), setValue (selector, value), typeText (text; focus: selector), key (key: \"ctrl+s\", \"enter\"), select (selector, option), menu (path: \"File > Save\"), secondary (selector, action), scroll (point, screenshotId, scrollX, scrollY), drag (from, to, screenshotId), hover (selector, or point + screenshotId: one mouse move, no button; give expect or refresh \"image\" to read the tooltip or menu it reveals). Optional: expect (postcondition), timeoutMs (0-15000), refresh (text|image|both), fallback (false forbids real mouse/keyboard), confirm and accord for sensitive actions (see the refusal)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "click",
-  "setValue",
-  "typeText",
-  "key",
-  "select",
-  "menu",
-  "secondary",
-  "scroll",
-  "drag"
-]New value: +[
+  "click",
+  "setValue",
+  "typeText",
+  "key",
+  "select",
+  "menu",
+  "secondary",
+  "scroll",
+  "drag",
+  "hover"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the try-in-background-first strategy (Win32/UIA/DevTools), the real mouse/keyboard only as fallback under a shared foreground token, a 32-step cap, stop-at-first-unverified semantics, per-step outcome markers (✓/=/~/✗), and the confirm/accord gate for sensitive actions. That is exactly the operational context destructiveHint/openWorldHint alone cannot convey.

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?

Dense but every clause carries load — fallback policy, batching limit, stop condition, result legend — and the batching/stop rules are front-loaded. It is a single run-on block rather than broken into scannable segments, which costs a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully encodes return semantics via the ✓/=/~/✗ legend and explains failure behavior (stops at first unverified step). Remaining gaps are the omission of the per-kind parameter contract and the explicit dependency on a prior observation.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the description only gestures at a few parameters (expect, timeoutMs range, refresh, fallback, confirm/accord). The ten-value 'kind' enum, selector/point requirements per kind, and screenshotId are not explained in the description text, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the verb (steps/acts) and the resource (the window of the last look) and names the execution layers it drives. An agent can tell it apart from the observing sibling 'look', though the phrasing 'Steps on the window of the last look' is jargon-heavy rather than plainly declarative.

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?

It implies the prerequisite (acting on the state produced by the last 'look') and routes back with '~ unknown (never replayed: look again)'. However it never explicitly says 'call look first' or contrasts itself with look/window/launch by name, so the when-to-use decision is inferred rather than stated.

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