Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deepseek-mcp

deepseek-mcp

by Korck-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_harnesses

Discover available CLI harnesses configured for the bridge, including their invocation commands, to understand which local tools can handle delegated prompts.

Instructions

List harness hosts the bridge can drive (from HARNESS_ALLOW_HOSTS / HARNESS_CMD_* config) with their commands.

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": "list_harnesses"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the configuration source (HARNESS_ALLOW_HOSTS / HARNESS_CMD_*) and that commands are included, but it omits edge cases like empty lists or error behavior, leaving read-only as an inference.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each phrase adds value: 'List', 'harness hosts', 'the bridge can drive', and the config source.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers key facts: what is listed and where the data comes from. It does not define the return format, but the purpose is clear enough for tool selection.

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 no parameter details are needed. The description adds meaning by specifying the content (hosts and commands) and the source, which is sufficient for understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'harness hosts' with scope 'the bridge can drive (from config)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_models and use_harness.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before use_harness or in contrast to list_models). The description states only what the tool does, with no explicit use cases or exclusions.

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