Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Recipe Run

recipe_run

Executes a recipe end to end: binds params, runs each step's tool in order via the registry, persists the run (see recipe_runs), and returns each step's result plus any markers_path. Recipes with state-changing steps (write/send/delete) PREVIEW first — call again with confirm:true to execute; read-only recipes run immediately. A step that errors stops the run and is reported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
paramsNoParam overrides (merged over the recipe defaults).
confirmNoSet true to execute a recipe that has state-changing steps; read-only recipes ignore it.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: preview for state-changing recipes, immediate execution for read-only ones, error handling (step error stops run and reports), and persistence. Annotations confirm non-read-only and non-destructive nature, and description adds value beyond annotations, though more details on side effects or idempotency would be beneficial.

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, two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides necessary information without 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 complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the workflow, preview mechanism, and error behavior. It mentions return values (step results, markers_path) but could elaborate on what 'markers_path' is or mention concurrency restrictions.

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 input schema has 67% description coverage. The tool's description adds meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in state-changing recipes, and to 'params' by mentioning binding. However, the 'name' parameter lacks explanation beyond schema, though the description implies it identifies the recipe.

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 executes a recipe end to end, binding params, running steps in order, persisting the run, and returning results. It distinguishes between state-changing and read-only recipes, which sets it apart from siblings like recipe_get or recipe_list.

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 on when to use this tool: to run a recipe. It explains the preview-confirm workflow for state-changing steps, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like recipe_get for viewing a recipe definition, which would further guide selection.

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