Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Run Diagnostics

run_diagnostics
Read-only

Runs a fast health check of all LMCP integrations on this machine. Shows what works, what doesn't, and how to fix it. Optionally submits a report to the LMCP team.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoIntegration to focus on: calendar, mail, contacts, reminders, omnifocus, outlook, notes, finder, onedrive, screen_recording, accessibility. Leave empty to check all.
submitNoSend the diagnostic report to the LMCP team for analysis (default: false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reportNoFull formatted text report
summaryYesPlain-language summary of overall health
ok_countYesNumber of integrations working
submittedNoTrue when the report was sent to the LMCP team
warn_countYesNumber of integrations with warnings / not running
integrationsYes
problem_countYesNumber of integrations with errors or missing permissions

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the optional behavior of submitting a report to the LMCP team, which is a critical side effect not covered by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations. This goes beyond the structured data by revealing potential external data transmission, aiding the agent in understanding consequences.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The core action, output value, and optional behavior are all presented upfront. Front-loaded and easily parseable.

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 existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output nature, and optional submission. It slightly overstates 'all' integrations without mentioning the focus parameter, but the schema handles that nuance. Overall adequate for a simple diagnostic tool.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters (focus, submit) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning the optional report submission, which aligns with the submit parameter but doesn't expand on focus. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the weight.

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's function with specific verbs and scope: 'Runs a fast health check of all LMCP integrations on this machine.' It also specifies what the user gets ('Shows what works, what doesn't, and how to fix it') and an optional action (submit report), distinguishing it from other diagnostic tools like lmcp_state or permissions_status.

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 for when to use it (when checking health of LMCP integrations) by stating it covers all integrations and outputs actionable fixes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over sibling diagnostic tools.

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