hypr-mcp

by tuan-cre

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_windows

Get window details (class, title, size, position) with optional filters for monitor or workspace.

Instructions

List windows with class, title, size, position.

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
`monitor`	No
`workspace`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says what is listed but does not mention default behavior (e.g., all windows vs. current workspace), ordering, whether hidden/minimized windows are included, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not shown in the description, so return format details are missing.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and attributes. It is efficient with no fluff, but it sacrifices useful detail about parameters and behavior.

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?

The tool has a relatively simple listing purpose, and the output schema exists (though not shown), which compensates somewhat. However, the unexplained optional parameters and lack of behavioral context (default scope, filtering semantics) leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the optional 'monitor' and 'workspace' parameters at all. It does not clarify their format, allowed values, or filtering effect. The schema provides only type and default, leaving agents to guess how to use these filters.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('windows'), and specifies the returned attributes (class, title, size, position). It distinguishes the purpose from siblings like focus_window or close_window, though it could more explicitly contrast with list_monitors/list_workspaces.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as filtering by monitor/workspace or when a more specific window lookup is needed. The optional parameters suggest filtering, but the description does not state their purpose or when to use them.

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