Get a list of all open windows for a specified Mac application by providing its name or bundle identifier, enabling targeted window management and automation.
Get all windows belonging to an application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | Yes | Application name or bundle identifier |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic operation and does not mention whether hidden/minimized windows are included, ordering, failure behavior when the app is not running, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource while remaining immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has a single documented parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be described. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral nuance leaves some contextual gaps for an agent deciding when and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'app' parameter already documented as 'Application name or bundle identifier'. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, so the schema handles the parameter semantics and the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all windows belonging to an application'), making the tool's scope clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_active_window by emphasizing 'all windows' rather than a single active window.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_active_window, get_window_name, or get_window_size. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and one-line description, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed