Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FolderBridge MCP

FolderBridge MCP

by MoonTzai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Read recent FolderBridge flight diagnostics

flight_recorder
Read-only

Assess MCP/Tunnel reliability by reading the last 15 minutes of recorded metadata and redacted diagnostics. Use status, recent, or errors to query health, timeline, or warning/error events.

Instructions

Read FolderBridge's compact local reliability flight recorder. It keeps only the latest 15 minutes with a 20 MiB total cap, records MCP/Tunnel metadata and bounded redacted diagnostics, and never stores full MCP request/response bodies. Use action=status for storage health, recent for a bounded timeline, or errors for warning/error events only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "flight_recorder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoall
limitNo
actionYes
minutesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.25

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses retention limits (15 minutes, 20 MiB), recording of MCP/Tunnel metadata, bounded redacted diagnostics, and explicitly states it never stores full request/response bodies, going beyond the read-only annotation.

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 concise sentences, first summarizing the tool's purpose and data characteristics, second giving actionable usage for actions; no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Lacks explanation of parameters like role, limit, minutes, and their interaction; while the action usage is covered, the tool cannot be fully used without inferring parameter meanings from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Description does not explain any of the parameters (action, role, limit, minutes) except implicitly mentioning action usage; schema has enums and defaults but description adds no parameter definitions.

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?

States the verb 'Read' and the resource 'FolderBridge's compact local reliability flight recorder' clearly, distinguishing it from other read tools like server_info or file_info by specifying the domain.

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?

Provides guidance on which action to use (status, recent, errors) but does not compare with sibling tools or explain when to choose this over others; still, the action-specific advice is useful.

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