Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Create Referral Invites

create_referral_invites

Records referral invites for the colleagues a user chose to invite and returns a unique referral link per person, so the user can later see who installed or activated LMCP. It does not send anything itself — each returned link can be included in an email or message to that person. lang records the language the invite is written in (e.g. "es", "en").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoISO language of the invite you're writing (the user's conversation language, e.g. 'es', 'en'). Defaults to the Mac's language.
recipientsYesThe picked recipients.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextNo
invitesNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation with no destructive hint, and the description adds valuable behavior context: the tool records invites and returns links but does not actually send anything. This clarifies side effects and what the caller must do next, which is useful beyond the structured annotation.

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, each earning its place: purpose/outcome, non-sending caveat, and param clarification. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple create-and-return tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is recorded, what is returned, how the return value should be used, and one parameter's meaning. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description only needs to add supplementary meaning. It clarifies the purpose of 'lang' ('records the language the invite is written in'), which slightly reinforces the schema, but it does not significantly extend parameter understanding beyond what the schema already 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Records') and a clear resource ('referral invites'), and explains the output (unique referral link per person). It clearly distinguishes this create/record tool from siblings like list_referral_candidates by focusing on recording invited colleagues.

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 usage context: it is for colleagues the user chose to invite, and it explicitly notes that it does not send anything, so the returned links can be included in emails or messages. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources