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

arch-mcp-server

by DankyoDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Package status

pkg_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches pending package updates, orphaned packages, sync age, and cache size on Arch systems without checkupdates, and counts AUR updates when yay or paru is installed.

Instructions

Pending updates, orphans, sync age and cache size. Works without checkupdates; AUR updates are counted when yay or paru exists.

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": "pkg_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it works without checkupdates, and AUR updates only appear when yay or paru is installed, which tells the agent results can be conditionally incomplete. It says nothing about cost, latency, or output shape, so it is solid but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler, with the reported data front-loaded before the conditional-environment caveat. Every clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it only enumerates four data categories without saying how they are structured or what units sync age and cache size use. It is adequate for a zero-argument status tool but leaves the agent guessing about result formatting.

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 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 the concrete data the tool reports (pending updates, orphans, sync age, cache size), which is package-specific and clearly separable from siblings like sys_status or svc_status. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'reports' or 'returns', but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The second sentence describes environmental behavior (checkupdates not required, yay/paru needed for AUR counts) rather than when-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the call context.

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