Skip to main content
Glama
HasanJahidul

localhost-mcp

by HasanJahidul
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

find_zombies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify abandoned dev servers by flagging processes with uptime over 6 hours, CPU under 1%, and memory over 100MB. Returns candidates with matching reasons.

Instructions

Read-only. Flags dev servers that look abandoned — all three of: uptime > 6h AND CPU < 1% AND memory > 100MB. By default it excludes known always-on noise (VS Code server, language servers, other MCP servers, postgres/redis, sidekiq, etc.); set include_excluded: true to also list those. Each candidate comes with the reasons it matched. This tool never kills anything — pass results to kill_server. Returns { count, candidates[] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_excludedNoAlso include IDE/LSP/agent/DB processes that match the heuristic but are normally filtered out. Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
candidatesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / include_excluded / description
      Previous value: -"Include IDE/LSP/agent/DB processes that match the zombie heuristic. Default false."New value: +"Also include IDE/LSP/agent/DB processes that match the heuristic but are normally filtered out. Default false."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "candidates": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "cmdline": {
+            "description": "Full command line, e.g. `next dev`.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "cpu_pct": {
+            "description": "Instantaneous CPU percent from `ps`.",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "cwd": {
+            "description": "Working directory of the process (best-effort; may be empty on Windows).",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "excluded": {
+            "description": "True if it only appears because `include_excluded` was set.",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "framework": {
+            "description": "Detected framework, e.g. `next.js`, `vite`, `rails`; `unknown` if not recognised.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "memory_mb": {
+            "description": "Resident set size in MB.",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "pid": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "port": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "process": {
+            "description": "Process name, e.g. `node`, `python`.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "project_name": {
+            "description": "Basename of `cwd`, or the npm package name when detected.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reasons": {
+            "description": "Why this process was flagged, e.g. `uptime 14h`, `cpu 0.1%`, `mem 412MB`.",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "uptime_seconds": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "user": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and 'This tool never kills anything'. It details the exact heuristic logic and default filtering behavior, adding substantial context beyond what annotations provide.

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 highly concise, with three sentences packed with essential information. It front-loads core purpose, then covers behavior, parameter, safety, and output format without unnecessary words.

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 (single boolean parameter, clear heuristic), the description fully covers matching criteria, default exclusion behavior, the parameter's effect, relationship to sibling tools, and the return format. No gaps remain.

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 for the single parameter (include_excluded) is 100%, and the schema already includes a thorough description. The tool description restates the parameter's effect but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 flags dev servers that appear abandoned, and precisely defines the three matching criteria (uptime > 6h, CPU < 1%, memory > 100MB). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it never kills anything and that results should be passed to kill_server.

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 explains that the tool is read-only and should be used to identify candidates, while kill_server is for termination. It also describes the default exclusion of noise processes and the include_excluded parameter, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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