mcp-system

by MikeyBeez

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct system aspect: commands, system info, processes, env variables, services, ports, disk, network. There is no overlap between tools, and descriptions clearly differentiate the breadth of system_info from the specific disk_usage and network_info tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent domain_action pattern (e.g., process_list, env_get, port_check), with the second token being a verb or noun as appropriate. The only deviation is 'help', which is a common utility exception, but it does not disrupt overall readability or predictability.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server covers a broad system administration scope without being overwhelming. Each tool addresses a specific, identifiable need, and the count fits well within the typical 3-15 tool range for a comprehensive server.
Completeness4/5
The toolset has minor gaps: service start/stop and process creation are missing, but system_exec provides a general-purpose fallback for these actions. Read-only operations for env, ports, disk, and network are well covered, making the surface reasonably complete for diagnostic and basic management tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Execute a system command' gives no information about side effects, output, exit codes, security implications, or potential destructive behavior. It merely restates what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is also under-specified for such a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. It lacks structure and does not convey any meaningful detail beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a high-risk tool (arbitrary command execution) with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not mention return values, failure modes, working directory behavior, environment handling, or safety warnings. It is seriously incomplete for the complexity involved.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (command, cwd, env), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb 'Execute' and resource 'system command', making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like process_kill or env_set, but the generic nature of 'system command' is evident.
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 guidance on when to use system_exec versus more specific alternatives such as process_kill or env_set. The description provides no context about suitability, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether it scans recursively, requires permissions, how errors are handled, or what the output includes, leaving the agent without crucial 'beyond the name' information.
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 sentence with no wasted words, achieving good conciseness and front-loading. However, it is so minimal that it lacks structure and supplementary detail that could be present without sacrificing conciseness, so it doesn't earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity with one optional parameter, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description must explain what 'disk usage information' actually includes (e.g., total, free, used). It doesn't, leaving an agent uncertain about the response format and tool's full capabilities.
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% with the 'path' parameter described as 'Path to check (default: /)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function with 'Get disk usage information', which is a specific action on a resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_info or system_exec. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't specify the scope or format beyond the name, so it's not a full 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action with no context, so an agent has no basis for choosing this over siblings like system_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action ('Check status') without explaining what a status check entails, whether privileged access is required, or what kind of output to expect.
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 a single, short sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the agent without knowledge of the return format, possible statuses, or how to interpret the result. Even for a simple tool, the absence of behavioral context makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 is 100% because the single parameter 'service' is described as 'Service name'. The description adds slight context (system service, macOS/Linux) but does not go beyond the schema in explaining parameter values or format, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'status of a system service' and includes platform scope (macOS/Linux). It is distinct from sibling tools like process_list, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar status-related tools.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_info or process_list. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no other behavioral traits are disclosed, such as what categories of information are available or whether it could be slow for certain types.
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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded but lacks structure or additional detail that could be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) but with no output schema and minimal description, it is unclear what information is returned or how it relates to the more specific sibling tools. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.
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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter with an enum and a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves system information (verb+resource). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like disk_usage or network_info, which are more specific system information commands.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools. The description gives no context for choosing system_info over network_info, disk_usage, or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'Get network interface information' without disclosing specifics like output format, permissions required, or whether it performs any active scanning. This is minimal and lacks behavioral detail.
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 focused sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it lacks any structural breakdown or additional context, which is acceptable for a simple tool but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves unspecified what 'network interface information' includes or how it is returned. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify return expectations, which it does not.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed given the zero-parameter interface, earning the baseline 4 for tools with 0 params.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Get network interface information'). It is distinct enough from siblings like 'system_info' and 'disk_usage' by focusing on network interfaces, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'system_info' or 'port_check'. The description simply states what it does without any contextual usage advice or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Kill' implies destructive action, but it does not disclose that a signal is sent (default SIGTERM per schema), that permissions may be required, that the process termination is irreversible, or what side effects might occur. The minimal description leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention usage context, prerequisites, or consequences, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.
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%, with both 'pid' and 'signal' already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Kill a process by PID' uses a specific verb ('kill'), resource ('process'), and method ('by PID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like process_list (which lists processes) and system_exec (which executes commands). The purpose is 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as finding the PID via process_list, nor does it distinguish from sending kill commands via system_exec. There is no context about appropriate vs. inappropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List running processes' without stating that it is a read-only operation, what information is returned, or any permissions required. Although 'list' suggests non-mutation, the description does not explicitly disclose behavior beyond the verb.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for a basic listing operation. However, it does not mention return format or any side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.
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%, with both 'limit' and 'filter' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List running processes' uses a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like process_kill (which kills processes) and system_info (which provides system-level info). It is specific and 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of typical workflows. While the name and description imply a read-only listing, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over process_kill or system_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the check but does not explain how the check is performed (e.g., TCP connect, local socket), whether there are side effects, or the exact return format.
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 a single, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return value, such as whether it returns a boolean or exit code, though the phrasing implies a boolean result.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters (host with default, port) at 100% coverage, so the schema provides the necessary details. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema.
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 the tool's function using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('port'). The scope is implied to be checking a port's usage status, which distinguishes it from broader tools like network_info or process_list.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_info or service_status. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation 'Get environment variables' and does not disclose return format, failure modes, or whether it returns all variables when none specified (though the schema covers that). It implies a read-only operation via 'get', but lacks richer context.
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 a single sentence, 'Get environment variables', which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. There is no extraneous information; every word serves a purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema. While the description and schema cover the basic purpose and parameter, the lack of return format or behavior details leaves gaps. However, for a straightforward getter, this is minimally adequate.
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?
The schema already describes the single 'variable' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter is used or its optional behavior, relying entirely on the schema.
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 states a specific verb 'get' with a clear resource 'environment variables'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like env_set (which sets variables) and system_info (which provides general system information). The scope is 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention env_set or any other sibling, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is from the verb 'get', which is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the operation ('Set') and scope, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing variables), return value, error conditions, or whether the change affects child processes. This is insufficient for a mutating tool with no annotation support.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description combined with the schema covers the core action and scope. However, because it is a mutating operation with no annotations, missing details about return values and failure modes make it only minimally complete.
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%, with both parameters ('variable' and 'value') described directly in the schema. The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics, so per the rubric it receives the baseline score of 3.
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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('environment variable') with scope ('for the current process'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like env_get. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'for the current process' provides useful context about the scope (non-persistent, process-local), implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., env_get) or exclusion cases, so the guidance is primarily implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') with no side effects, but doesn't disclose the output format or scope specifics (e.g., whether it returns usage examples). The behavior is simple and mostly covered.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it immediately scannable.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and absence of parameters or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the user what they will receive (documentation) and for what scope (all system functions). It could mention whether it covers sibling tools by name, but the phrase 'all system functions' implies it.
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 there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info. It correctly omits any param details.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation for all system functions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform system operations. It unambiguously identifies the tool as a help/documentation resource.
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 implies usage: when you need documentation of system functions. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear given siblings are actual operational tools. A help tool's usage is naturally inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-system MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-system/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-system)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-system MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-system/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-system)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MikeyBeez/mcp-system'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server