Local MCP

Request Feature

request_feature

Destructive

Submits a feature request to the LMCP team — a new capability, a tool that doesn't exist yet, or an app/integration the user wishes LMCP supported. A user would invoke this when they want to ask the team for something LMCP can't do yet. Without confirm=true it returns a preview; with confirm=true it submits. The request includes the machine ID and (if set) the account email so the team can follow up — it is not anonymous.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Optional: an email the team can reply to. If you add your email, we link it to this installation's diagnostic data (version, setup progress, errors and tool usage) so we can follow up on this report and tell you when it's fixed. See local-mcp.com/privacy.
`confirm`	No	Must be true to submit. Without it, shows a preview.
`feature`	Yes	What the user wants LMCP to do — a capability, tool, or integration.
`remember`	No	With confirm: true, also stop asking for this kind of action from now on. Only when the person said so ("don't ask again"). The person can revoke it in LMCP or with set_always_allowed.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: an email the team can reply to. If you add your email, we link it to this installation's diagnostic data (version, setup progress, errors and tool usage) so we can follow up on this report and tell you when it's fixed. See local-mcp.com/privacy.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / remember

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With confirm: true, also stop asking for this kind of action from now on. Only when the person said so (\"don't ask again\"). The person can revoke it in LMCP or with set_always_allowed.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value: the confirm-gated preview-vs-submit behavior and the privacy disclosure that requests carry the machine ID and account email (not anonymous). The persistent effect of the 'remember' flag is left to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then confirm behavior, then the privacy note. Each sentence carries useful information; only the redundant 'A user would invoke this when...' repeats the scope already implied.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the key gaps an agent needs—preview/submit gating and the non-anonymous data inclusion—leaving little missing for correct invocation.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the confirm preview/submit semantics and the email privacy implication, but adds little beyond what the schema fields already state, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits a feature request') and bounds the scope to a new capability, a tool that doesn't exist yet, or an app/integration LMCP lacks, which implicitly separates it from problem-reporting siblings. It does not explicitly name the closest alternative (report_problem/report_friction), so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

"A user would invoke this when they want to ask the team for something LMCP can't do yet" gives a clear, actionable trigger. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for reporting an actual bug, leaving that boundary to inference.

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

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.