GNOME Desktop MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_windows

Retrieve details of all open windows including ID, title, class, position, size, state, and workspace for desktop automation.

Instructions

List all open windows with their properties.

Returns JSON array with id, title, wmClass, position, size, state, workspace.

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": "list_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'Returns JSON array' without detailing behavioral aspects like whether it's real-time/snapshot data, permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions output structure but lacks operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second specifies return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality, and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by return description), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, errors), which is a minor gap for a read-only tool with no annotations.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter info (none needed), so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools without redundancy.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all open windows with their properties'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_window' (single window) and 'list_workspaces' (different resource).

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 implies usage for retrieving window information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_window' (for a specific window) or 'list_workspaces' (for workspace-level info). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.