F4 Crash Doctor

by Apocalypse-Meow

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing logs, parsing logs, reading load order, scanning environment, running combined diagnosis, looking up mods, and checking auth. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_crash_logs, get_crash_log, get_load_order, scan_game_environment, diagnose_crash, lookup_mod, check_nexus_auth), all lowercase with underscores.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a crash diagnosis server: the core operations (list, parse, scan, diagnose) plus two optional Nexus helpers and one auth check. No superfluous tools.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full diagnosis workflow: discovering logs, parsing them, checking the environment and load order, and combining everything into ranked findings. The optional mod lookup and auth check fill the remaining practical need without dead ends.
Average 4.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states it is read-only and does not open or modify anything, and it discloses the environment variable override. It does not mention error handling or potential side effects beyond the read-only claim, but for a listing tool this is sufficient.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides search location, return details, and side-effect disclosure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what, where, ordering, return fields, directories searched, and read-only behavior. It adequately informs an agent of the full behavior without needing an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that it returns up to `limit` entries, which is essential and not provided elsewhere. It also mentions an environment variable not part of the schema. The description could also note the default behavior (default 10) explicitly, but it is present in the schema.
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 specifies the action (list), the resource (Buffout 4 crash logs), and the scope (on this machine, newest first). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_crash_log, which likely retrieves a single log's content.
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 this tool: to list crash logs on the machine. It implies use before fetching a specific log, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool names hint at alternatives, but the description itself could be more explicit about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it 'never changes any file', that findings are 'ADVISORY ONLY', and details the exact output structure (ranked findings, evidence lines, environment and load-order dicts). It also discloses the default behavior when path is omitted.
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 structured with a lead phrase followed by a clear breakdown of pipeline steps and outputs. It's about 100 words, which is appropriate for a tool that orchestrates multiple subsystems. Every sentence adds useful information, though a slight tightening could push it to 5.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all required aspects: what it does, what it returns (including ranking criteria), what is safe (no file changes), and how the optional parameter behaves. It is fully complete for an orchestration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter `path` is not described in the schema (coverage 0%), so the description's clarification that it parses the given log or defaults to the newest one fully compensates. This is the key semantic information the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 opens with 'One-shot crash diagnosis: parse log + scan environment + match signatures' which clearly states the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing the full pipeline, not just individual steps like list_crash_logs or get_load_order.
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 explains the comprehensive nature of this tool versus the individual sibling tools, and clarifies that it can use an explicit path or default to the newest log. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use it instead of the simpler tools, such as 'if you only need a single file, use get_crash_log'. That nuance prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it details parsing of Plugins.txt, the '*' prefix, Data folder listing, both mismatch directions, exclusion of implicit plugins, MO2 handling with a reliability flag, and explicitly states 'Read-only'. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the tool's name.
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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: it front-loads the main purpose, then systematically explains the parsing logic, mismatch reporting, implicit plugin exclusions, MO2 caveat, and safety. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, zero parameters, and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all edge cases (missing files, extra files, implicit plugins, MO2 virtualization) and clearly defines the tool's behavior in each scenario, leaving no significant ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it sufficiently explains the tool's operation without referencing parameters.
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 reads the live Fallout 4 load order and cross-checks it against Data, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on load order integrity, distinct from crash logs, environment scans, or diagnostics.
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 implies when to use (to investigate load order mismatches causing missing-master crashes) and explicitly mentions a caveat for MO2 users, stating the cross-check is skipped. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use this when' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite having no annotations, the description is highly transparent: it states it is read-only, describes the discovery order (env var, known locations, Steam libraries), lists all reported data points, and explains the nuanced 'recognized_bundle' interpretation for crash loggers. This surpasses basic behavioral disclosure.
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 dense but well-structured: a one-sentence summary, discovery details, a comprehensive report list, and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It fully specifies what the scan discovers (game version, F4SE health, mod managers, etc.) and includes a subtle interpretation rule (recognized_bundle) that prevents misuse. This is as complete as expected for a complex diagnostic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no schema to add detail, and the description clarifies that the scan is fully automatic with no user input required.
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 that the tool scans the installed Fallout 4 for versions, F4SE health, and mod managers, and enumerates the specific outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the initial comprehensive scan in a diagnosis session.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call this tool FIRST in any diagnosis session and explains why (version mismatches explain many crashes before reading logs). It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not guidance, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (verification, reporting account status), the output fields, and an environmental dependency (NEXUS_API_KEY). It lacks detail on error handling or exact response format, but for a simple auth check this is adequate.
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?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return values and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, lists the expected return values, clarifies the optional environment variable, and gives a direct use case. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that NEXUS_API_KEY is optional and only relevant to certain tools, which goes beyond the empty schema and helps the agent understand invocation requirements.
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 purpose with specific verbs: 'Verify the Nexus API key works and report account status.' It also specifies the return values (account name, premium/supporter flags, user id), which makes it distinct from sibling tools like crash log and mod lookup tools.
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?
The description explicitly gives a use case: 'Use this to troubleshoot lookup_mod failures.' It also provides context about NEXUS_API_KEY being optional and only needed for Nexus lookup tools, helping the agent decide when this tool is relevant versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses default behavior (newest log), refusal conditions for invalid paths, the specific return fields (exception, call stack, plugin list, etc.), the stack truncation to 50 lines, and the exact error payload when no logs are found. This is exceptionally transparent.
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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, followed by path behavior, validation constraints, return contents, truncation notice, and error case. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (parses crash logs into multiple sections) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values, error handling, and edge cases. It also hints at integration with list_crash_logs, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'path', has a schema that just says string/null with a default. The description adds deep semantic meaning: what happens when omitted (newest log), how to specify a particular log (from list_crash_logs), and validation rules (must be inside crash-log folders or named crash-*.log). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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: 'Parse a Buffout 4 crash log into structured sections.' It uses a specific verb ('parse'), specifies the resource ('Buffout 4 crash log'), and indicates the output format ('structured sections'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_crash_logs, which lists logs, and diagnose_crash, which presumably analyzes causes.
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 usage context: without a path it automatically selects the newest log, and with an explicit path it parses that specific log. It also gives constraints (paths must be crash logs) and references list_crash_logs as a source for paths. It does not explicitly compare with other siblings like diagnose_crash, but the context is clear enough for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses read-only status, the NEXUS_API_KEY requirement, that it never downloads anything, and the exact error behavior without the key. This is exceptional transparency for a tool with no annotations.
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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds input format, return data, use case, and error behavior without redundancy. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers input formats, return contents, authentication requirements, safety (no downloads), and fallback behavior when the key is missing. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the single parameter url_or_id has no schema description. The description fully compensates by explaining the accepted formats (Nexus URL or 'game/mod_id') and providing a concrete example, adding meaning far beyond the raw schema.
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: 'Look up a mod on Nexus Mods' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_crash_logs or scan_game_environment by focusing on Nexus Mod metadata lookup.
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 the tool: 'useful for checking whether a suspect mod has a newer version or a compatibility patch.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the use case is well implied and distinct from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![f4-crash-doctor MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Apocalypse-Meow/f4-crash-doctor/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Apocalypse-Meow/f4-crash-doctor)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![f4-crash-doctor MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Apocalypse-Meow/f4-crash-doctor/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Apocalypse-Meow/f4-crash-doctor)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Apocalypse-Meow/f4-crash-doctor'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server