Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Record Marker

record_marker

Drops a named marker into the active recording's timeline. t_ms is elapsed ms since recording start. Provide bounds (global points, top-left) to zoom toward an element, or omit for full-frame. note becomes a caption source. Returns no_active_session if nothing is recording.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesMarker name, e.g. open_tray, act2_calendar_create.
noteNoFree text → caption source.
boundsNoOptional {x,y,w,h} global points to zoom toward.
session_idNo

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior. The description adds that dropping a marker modifies the timeline and that an error occurs if no active session exists. It does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=false). However, it lacks details on idempotency or behavior if the same marker name is used twice.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently covers usage of optional parameters and error case. The only waste is the incorrect 't_ms' mention.

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?

Given no output schema and nested objects, the description is incomplete. It omits explanation of 'session_id' and introduces a parameter ('t_ms') not present in the schema. The error case is covered but missing details like bounds format expectation (e.g., coordinate system) or behavior when recording is paused.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), but the description repeats some of those and adds a non-existent parameter 't_ms'. For 'name', it provides examples. For 'session_id', no additional meaning is provided. The description adds limited value beyond the schema and is misleading regarding 't_ms'.

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 the action ('drops a named marker') and the resource ('active recording's timeline'). It distinguishes from sibling screen recording tools by focusing on markers specifically. However, the mention of 't_ms' which is not in the input schema introduces confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to provide bounds ('zoom toward an element') and that note becomes a caption source. It also mentions the error case 'Returns no_active_session if nothing is recording.' But it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which are absent.

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