Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Signal Compose Guidance

signal_compose_guidance
Read-only

Composes a Signal message and returns step-by-step guidance for the user to send it themselves. This tool does NOT send: Signal Desktop exposes no local send API and LMCP reads its database read-only, so it cannot transmit Signal messages. Call it when the user wants to message someone on Signal — it drafts the text and tells them how to deliver it. First call (show_send_steps=false or omitted) returns a preview; show_send_steps=true returns the send-it-yourself steps. chat_id should come from a previous signal_list_chats call — never fabricate IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesPlain-text message body
chat_idYesChat ID from signal_list_chats
show_send_stepsNoSet true to get the send-it-yourself steps. Default: preview only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which aligns with the description. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining WHY it can't send (no local send API, LMCP reads DB read-only) and disclosing the two-behavior split between preview and steps. It could mention return-format details but the output schema likely covers that.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical 'does NOT send' caveat, then neatly covers usage context, chat_id sourcing, and the mode switch. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with full schema coverage (100%), an output schema present, and clear annotations, the description thoroughly covers purpose, limitations, when-to-use, parameter sourcing, and mode behavior. The only minor gap might be return-content expectations, but the output schema handles that. This is complete for the complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% (all 3 params documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds context for chat_id specifically (source from signal_list_chats, never fabricate) and clarifies the show_send_steps default behavior ('Default: preview only'), adding modest value beyond the schema. Text param gains no additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Composes a Signal message') and clearly states the tool's key scope limitation: it does NOT send messages. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message, teams_send_message, etc. by explicitly noting it returns guidance for self-delivery rather than transmitting. The 'preview vs steps' behavior is clearly defined.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to call it ('when the user wants to message someone on Signal') and what the two modes do (show_send_steps=false/omitted returns preview, =true returns steps). It names the prior tool signal_list_chats for obtaining chat_id and explicitly warns 'never fabricate IDs.' This is strong, concrete guidance.

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