tkinter-mcp-server

by tctibbs

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.9.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: launching, clicking, dragging, focusing, getting UI layout, reading/writing widget values, etc. Even similar tools like view_application and view_application_thumbnail are differentiated by resolution.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (launch_app, click_widget, set_widget_value) or get_ prefix (get_widget_value, get_window_info). The mix is consistent within subgroups, but not strictly uniform across all tools.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is slightly above the ideal range of 3-15, but the count is justified by the need for various GUI interactions and inspections. It does not feel excessive for the scope.
Completeness4/5
Covers core GUI operations: launch, close, click, drag, focus, read layout, read/write values, type text, and screenshots. Missing advanced interactions (e.g., right-click, scroll) but sufficient for fundamental testing.
Average 3.9/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on December 28, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions searching the widget tree and returning the widget ID if found, but does not state what happens when text is not found (error, null, empty result), nor does it clarify if the operation is read-only or has side effects. This lack of detail limits transparency.
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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 25 words. Every word earns its place, and the key action ('Find a widget') is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed in context), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It mentions the return value (widget ID) but omits details like return format or not-found behavior. For a straightforward tool, this is minimally viable but lacks completeness.
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?
The input schema already describes the 'text' parameter as 'The text to search for' (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional context, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and no extra value is contributed here.
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 tool's purpose: 'Find a widget by its text content.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_widget_options or get_widget_value by focusing on text-based search, making the verb+resource combination specific and unambiguous.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_focused_widget or view_application) would be more appropriate. This leaves the AI agent without contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool returns, with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, errors, or other behavioral traits.
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 clear sentences that immediately state the purpose and the output. No redundant words; the structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple read-only tool with an output schema. However, it lacks usage context or safety notes that would aid selection among 15 siblings.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter description indicating the source (get_ui_layout). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.
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 action (get), resource (available options/items), and the specific widget types (Combobox or Listbox). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_widget_value which gets current values.
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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Simulates dragging,' but does not describe what 'simulates' entails—e.g., whether it triggers OS-level events, waits for animations, or handles invisible widgets. No mention of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., widgets must be visible), or error handling for invalid IDs. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 simple integer parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks details on return value, success/failure behavior, or error handling. The description provides minimal context beyond the core functionality. It is complete for a basic understanding but not for robust use.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('The widget ID to drag from' and 'The widget ID to drag to'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 what the tool does: 'Perform drag and drop between two widgets.' It uses specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('drag and drop between two widgets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning drag-and-drop interfaces like chess boards and sortable lists, which differentiates it from click_widget or focus_widget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating it is 'Useful for drag-and-drop interfaces like chess boards, sortable lists, etc.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools offer implicit alternatives. No explicit exclusions or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'set keyboard focus' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggers focus events, affects UI state) or safety considerations. Acceptable but minimal.
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, direct sentence of five words conveys the tool's entire purpose with zero redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. However, adding context like 'focus is required before using type_text' would enhance completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description 'The widget ID from get_ui_layout()' already indicates the source. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 'Set keyboard focus to a widget' uses a specific verb ('Set keyboard focus') and resource ('widget'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like click_widget (click action) and get_focused_widget (query action).
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 use for focusing without clicking, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references (e.g., 'use click_widget to interact visually'). Usage context is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must stand alone. It states the return value (JSON ID or null) but does not explicitly state it is read-only and side-effect-free. Minimal but adequate.
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 simple sentences: a clear purpose and a noted return format. No wasted words, information is efficiently front-loaded.
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?
For a zero-parameter getter with output schema, the description covers purpose and return format. Could mention that it returns null if no focus, which it does. Lacks sibling differentiation but not critical.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Description adds nothing beyond schema, which is acceptable since no parameters need documentation.
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?
Clearly states 'Get the currently focused widget', specifying the exact resource and action. Distinct from siblings like focus_widget (which sets focus) and get_widget_value (which queries a specific widget's value).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied for querying the current focus, but no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It minimally states returns JSON but does not disclose what 'connected' means, side effects, or authentication needs. For a read-only check, more transparency would help.
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?
Extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. No wasted words; every part adds value.
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 zero parameters and existence of output schema (per context signals), description is adequate for a simple status check. Could clarify which app is checked, but overall sufficient.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, but schema covers everything trivially.
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?
Description clearly states 'Check if an app is currently connected' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on UI interaction, not status checking.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies usage for checking connectivity before UI actions. Lacks exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It describes the output structure but does not mention side effects, performance, or permissions. As a read operation, the lack of explicit non-destructive mention is a minor gap.
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?
The description is relatively concise with two paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and then details the output. Slightly verbose due to bullet-style listing, but still efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the content and use case. Missing mention of prerequisites like connectivity, but acceptable for a simple getter tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given no parameters exist.
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 tool retrieves the UI layout as hierarchical JSON, listing specific contents (widget class names, IDs, geometry, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like click_widget which operate on individual widgets.
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 suggests using the tool to understand the current GUI state, which implies its purpose, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains what is returned per widget type, but does not mention that the operation is read-only (non-destructive) or any prerequisites beyond a valid widget ID. It adds moderate transparency but could be more explicit.
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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses bullet points to list return types efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose. Slightly longer than minimal but all content is valuable.
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 the existence of an output schema, the description already explains return values per widget type thoroughly. It covers the main use case well. Could mention error conditions or edge cases, but overall complete for the agent's needs.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (widget_id). The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond 'The widget ID from get_ui_layout().' Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool gets the value of a widget based on its type, and enumerates specific return types for different widget types (Entry/Text, Scale, Combobox, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_widget_value and get_widget_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is well implied: when you need the current value of a widget. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear. Lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It details per-type value setting, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., triggering events), error handling, or validation constraints.
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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and uses a clear bullet list to enumerate widget types without unnecessary fluff.
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?
The description covers essential behavior per widget type, but lacks mention of validation (e.g., invalid widget type), error scenarios, or return value details, which an output schema might partially address.
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 coverage is 100%, and description adds significant meaning beyond schema by explaining how 'value' is interpreted for each widget type.
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 'Set' and resource 'widget value', and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_widget_value and click_widget by detailing widget-type-specific value setting behaviors.
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 when to use (after obtaining widget_id from get_ui_layout), but does not explicitly state when not to use or recommend alternatives for other interactions like clicking or typing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context that for buttons it invokes the button command and for other widgets generates a click event, which is behavioral detail beyond the name.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.
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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but confirmed), the description sufficiently covers the tool's operation. It omits return value details but that is acceptable with output schema present.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for widget_id, button, or double. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Click a widget by its ID' clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like drag_widget and focus_widget by specifying the click action and explaining the different behavior for buttons vs other widgets.
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 clicking widgets but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like type_text or drag_widget. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states "Terminates the app gracefully" and specifies the return format, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be running) or potential side effects (e.g., unsaved data loss).
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 extremely concise: three short sentences that convey action, quality, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, behavior (graceful termination), and return value. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of prerequisites or failure cases.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage (trivially). With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description does not need to add param information.
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 uses a specific verb "Close" and identifies the resource as "currently running Tkinter application". This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_app (which opens an app) and other widget manipulation tools.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs 'automatic Tkinter patching' to enable inspection, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., closing existing apps, error handling for invalid scripts) or resource usage. Some transparency is present but incomplete.
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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. The key information (launch app with inspection) is front-loaded, and every sentence provides value. There is no wasted text.
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 the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: launching and enabling inspection. However, it does not mention error conditions or what the output contains (though the output schema covers that). For a launch tool in this suite, it is largely complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already describes the single parameter 'script_path' as the path to the Python script. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool launches a Tkinter application with inspection enabled. It specifies the verb 'launch' and the resource 'Tkinter application', and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that interact with an already running application (e.g., click_widget, close_app). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used first before using other inspection tools, as it states the app will be inspectable once launched. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this before other tools' or provide guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if the app is already running). The context is clear but could be more explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the action and output format adequately, but could mention error conditions or screenshot scope (e.g., whether window decorations are included). No contradictions.
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?
Concise two-sentence structure with front-loaded purpose and additional context in second paragraph. No unnecessary information.
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?
Tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. Description explains return format and usage, but lacks preconditions or error handling info. However, sibling tools cover connectivity checks.
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?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states the tool takes a screenshot of the application window, specifies the return format (base64 JPEG), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_application_thumbnail by name and purpose.
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?
Implies usage for visual inspection but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like view_application_thumbnail or get_ui_layout.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses that it clears current content before inserting new text and only works with specific widget types. This provides adequate transparency for a simple mutation tool.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and constraints. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
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 the simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It could optionally mention return value but is not deficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the action ('Type text'), the target resource ('Entry or Text widget'), and includes important behavioral detail that distinguishes it from siblings like set_widget_value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that it only works with Entry and Text widgets, guiding the agent on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for other widget types, which could be improved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description clearly describes the tool as returning JSON data with x, y, width, height. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient given its simplicity.
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 concise, uses a single sentence for purpose, then lists the return fields. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and a simple read operation, the description fully covers the return values and purpose. The presence of an output schema further supports completeness.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. No additional semantic information is needed beyond what is already provided.
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 tool gets basic information about the application window and specifies the returned fields (position and dimensions). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on widgets or app launching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is 'useful for understanding window placement', which provides usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the return type (Base64 JPEG with data URI) and that it produces a low-resolution preview. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, but the nature of a screenshot implies no side effects. Good but could be more explicit.
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 three sentences, immediately stating the action and purpose, then providing an alternative and return format. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully explains what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No gaps given complexity.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details but clarifies the tool's purpose and output. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides useful context beyond the empty schema.
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 explicitly states the tool takes a small thumbnail screenshot for quick UI state checks, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'view_application' which is for detailed inspection. The verb 'view' and resource 'application thumbnail' are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description directs users to use 'view_application' for detailed inspection, implying when not to use this tool. However, it does not elaborate on other contexts or exclusions, but provides sufficient guidance for distinguishing from the main sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tkinter-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tctibbs/tkinter-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tctibbs/tkinter-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tkinter-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tctibbs/tkinter-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tctibbs/tkinter-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tctibbs/tkinter-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server