Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Recipe Save

recipe_save

Saves a reusable SKILL — a named recipe (an ordered sequence of LMCP tool calls with parameters) — to this Mac so the user can re-run it anytime with recipe_run. A user would save one to turn a multi-step LMCP workflow they repeat (a morning brief, inbox triage, a weekly report, a data pull) into a single reusable command. Saved skills can be shared with other people via recipe_export. The manifest must have a name and a non-empty steps array. Returns {name}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestYesThe recipe manifest. Shape: {"name": string (required), "description": string, "params": [{"name": string, "type": "string"|"int"|"bool", "default": any}], "steps": [ ... ] (required, non-empty), "outputs": [{"kind": string}]}. A step is EITHER a tool call {"tool": <tool_name>, "args": {...}} OR a pause {"wait": {"seconds": N}} (also {"wait": N}). Any arg string may interpolate a declared param with ${name} (e.g. "limit": "${count}"); an arg that is exactly "${name}" keeps the param's type. Steps run in order; a later step can consume an EARLIER step's output with "${steps[N].result.KEY}" (0-based; supports .key and [i], e.g. "account": "${steps[0].result.accounts[0].name}"). On recipe_run a state-changing step previews first unless confirm:true.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it returns {name} and requires a valid manifest, but does not detail overwrite behavior or failure modes. With annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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-loads the core action, and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding purpose and usage.

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 complexity and comprehensive schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent. It mentions return value and key constraints, but lacks error handling info. Still, it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only briefly mentions that the manifest must have 'name' and 'non-empty steps', adding no new semantic meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'saves' and the resource 'reusable SKILL — a named recipe'. It provides examples (morning brief, inbox triage) and distinguishes from sibling tools like recipe_run and recipe_export.

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 gives clear context on when to use: to turn a repeated multi-step workflow into a single command. It mentions related tools but does not explicitly state when NOT to use or alternatives beyond recipe_run.

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