Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-computer-use

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to read any Windows window as text with coordinates, including control names, roles, clickability, and all on-screen text positions, so even models without vision can understand and act on the desktop. It is read-only, listing windows, finding elements by name, and waiting for text to appear, without clicking, typing, or stealing focus.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      This server enables AI agents to operate Windows and Linux computers by observing the screen, understanding the UI through accessibility, OCR, and vision, and performing mouse, keyboard, window, clipboard, and system actions with verification and recovery.
      29
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to query Windows process, window, and console information via structured JSON instead of screenshots, reducing token usage by 94-98%.
      20
      28 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables LLMs to capture and analyze screenshots of your screen, windows, or regions with smart detection capabilities. Features natural language queries, automatic window targeting, and text enhancement for UI debugging and visual inspection.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A lightweight Windows automation MCP server that scopes UI operations to a single target window, offering tools like ReadWindow, PeekWindow, Click, Type, Scroll, Screenshot, and App management with reduced token usage compared to full-desktop alternatives.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    look_at_screen and release_model are clearly distinct, and ping vs health are separated by intent (lightweight heartbeat vs detailed backend diagnostic). However, both ping and health check Ollama reachability and model status, so an agent could reasonably hesitate between them in a failure scenario.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Naming mixes bare nouns (ping, health) with verb_noun forms (look_at_screen uses verb_preposition_noun, release_model is verb_noun). It stays readable, but there is no single predictable pattern across the four tools.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is a reasonable, tightly scoped set for a read-only screen-inspection bridge, with three of them being support/lifecycle helpers. It is on the thin side since only one tool performs the core action, but nothing is redundant filler.

    Completeness3/5

    For a server literally named 'computer-use', the surface is observation-only: no clicking, typing, window enumeration, or targeted reads beyond a single look_at_screen. The read-only lifecycle (ping, health, release_model) is well covered, but the domain name promises interaction the tool set does not deliver.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues