GNOME Desktop MCP

by sbuysse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

mouse_up

Release a mouse button at specified coordinates on GNOME Desktop, completing click actions for automation tasks.

Instructions

Release mouse button.

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "mouse_up"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`button`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Release mouse button' implies a low-level UI automation action but doesn't specify effects (e.g., whether it triggers events, requires prior mouse_down, or has side effects), leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it states the action concisely without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 (a UI interaction tool with 3 parameters) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and how it integrates with sibling tools, even with an output schema present, making it insufficient for full understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what x, y, or button mean, their units, or typical values (e.g., button=1 for left click), failing to provide meaningful context beyond the bare 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?

The description 'Release mouse button' clearly states the action (release) and resource (mouse button), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mouse_down' or 'mouse_click', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mouse_down' or 'mouse_click', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It's a standalone statement with no usage instructions.

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