Os Automation Mcp
Server Details
MCP server for OS Automation
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 1.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
The tools have distinct names suggesting different operations (get, list, search, health), but descriptions are too brief to fully confirm no overlap between 'get' and 'list'.
All tools use snake_case and start with verbs, but the structure varies: 'get_os_automation_data' vs 'list_os_automation_items' vs shorter 'health_check' and 'search_os_automation'.
Four tools is a compact, focused set suitable for a specific automation domain, avoiding excess or deficiency.
The set covers data retrieval (get, list, search) and a health check, but lacks any mutation tools (create, update, delete) which limits automation capabilities.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_os_automation_dataDInspect
Tool: get_os_automation_data. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions an implementation detail (httpx) and a price, but does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any constraints like rate limits or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but ineffective. It includes non-essential details (price, httpx) while omitting critical information about purpose and usage. Brevity without substance is conciseness fail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema (one required string parameter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how to use the 'id'. It fails entirely, offering zero useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format. Without this information, the parameter is meaningless.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only restates the tool name and adds irrelevant details about using httpx and pricing. It does not specify what the tool does or what data is retrieved. Compared to siblings like 'health_check' or 'list_os_automation_items', there is no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (health_check, list_os_automation_items, search_os_automation). No prerequisites, context, or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCInspect
Health check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. 'Health check.' reveals no behavioral traits such as side effects, access requirements, or response format, scoring a 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise, the description is underspecified and fails to provide necessary information. It does not earn its place as a meaningful description, scoring a 2.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description should still convey what the health check does. It does not, leaving agents underinformed. Score 2.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds minimal but acceptable clarity ('Health check.') beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Health check.' restates the tool name without specifying what aspects are checked or what the result indicates. It is essentially a tautology, scoring a 2 per the rubric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings or other alternatives. The description offers no context, resulting in a score of 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_os_automation_itemsDInspect
Tool: list_os_automation_items. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or any side effects. The only behavioral info is that it uses httpx APIs, but that is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space repeating the tool name and listing a price. It lacks front-loading of the tool's purpose and has low informational density for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, usage patterns, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'filters' parameter. It provides no information about the expected structure, keys, or values. The parameter is undocumented beyond the schema's technical type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state what the tool does. It only mentions 'Uses: httpx public APIs' and a price, which does not clarify the purpose of listing OS automation items. The name hints at listing, but the description fails to confirm the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_os_automation_data, health_check, search_os_automation). No context on use cases or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_os_automationDInspect
Tool: search_os_automation. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description only mentions using httpx APIs and a price, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two lines) but lacks essential information. It is not conciseness; it is under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should provide context about return values, limits, and usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'query' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no meaning. The agent has no indication of query format, examples, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only states it uses httpx public APIs and a placeholder price, but does not specify what the tool searches for or its exact purpose. The name 'search_os_automation' hints at searching OS automation resources, but the sibling tools (get, list, health_check) are not distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!