Skip to main content
Glama
KitchenSink4AI

io.github.nometalalchemist/kitchensink4xl

by KitchenSink4AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Server Info

get_server_info
Read-only

Check KitchenSink4XL server health: retrieve build version, active tools, token usage, optional packs, platform, Python, and config flags (sandboxing, deep-verify). Read-only and requires no workbook.

Instructions

Report the KitchenSink4XL server build: version, the active tool surface (enabled tool count and approximate token bill), the optional packs, the host platform and Python, and config, which carries the install settings a user otherwise cannot confirm arrived: whether path sandboxing is on with how many roots (a count, never the paths), and whether saves deep-verify through Excel. A read-only orient call that needs no workbook and touches no file; use it to confirm the server is up and see which packs are loaded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes beyond by adding that it 'touches no file' and needs no workbook, plus a valuable privacy disclosure: path sandboxing reports 'a count, never the paths.' This is substantive behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, and it does not contradict them.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the primary subject and then layering details. Every sentence earns its place — no filler. It is slightly long, but for a parameterless tool where the description is the sole information source, the length is justified.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly: build version, tool surface with count and token bill, packs, platform, Python, and install config. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing, though the precise data types of each field are left implicit.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately spends its space explaining what the tool returns rather than parameter syntax. It compensates fully for the absence of a schema by describing each reported field (version, tool count, token bill, packs, platform, Python, sandbox count, deep-verify).

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 a specific verb and resource ('Report the KitchenSink4XL server build') and enumerates the exact items reported: version, tool surface, packs, platform, Python, and config. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from all 40 siblings, which are workbook-level operations; nothing else queries the server itself.

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 states an explicit use case: 'use it to confirm the server is up and see which packs are loaded.' It also notes it 'needs no workbook and touches no file,' which signals when to reach for it vs. workbook-scoped siblings. It stops short of naming exclusions, but with zero parameters and a unique server-level scope, no realistic alternative exists.

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