Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arch-mcp-server

arch-mcp-server

by DankyoDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Disk usage

fs_usage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports used space and inode usage per real mount, excluding pseudo filesystems unless include_pseudo is set, to identify storage pressure.

Instructions

Used space and inode usage per real mount. Pseudo filesystems are excluded unless include_pseudo is set.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fs_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_pseudoNoKeep proc, tmpfs, cgroup and similar mounts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that pseudo filesystems are skipped by default, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it largely restates the include_pseudo schema default and says nothing about result shape or how mounts are ordered.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the scope-defining clause ('per real mount') comes first. Slightly clipped grammar, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, annotation-complete tool this is close to sufficient. The only real gap is that, with no output schema, the description does not hint at which figures come back (size, used, available, inode counts).

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%, including the default and the enumeration of proc, tmpfs and cgroup, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of include_pseudo adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: used space and inode usage, reported per real mount. That is more precise than a generic 'disk usage', but it never states an explicit verb (report/return) and does not differentiate against any named sibling, since none of the listed siblings cover storage.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to check capacity or inode exhaustion. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer sys_info or host_capabilities, and no note on exclusions beyond the pseudo-filesystem rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools