Server Status MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_server_statusC | 获取服务器的CPU、内存和运行状态 |
| get_remote_server_statusC | 获取远程服务器的CPU、内存和运行状态 |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are nearly identical in purpose: both retrieve CPU, memory, and operational status. The only difference is 'remote' vs. unspecified server, which is ambiguous and likely to cause misselection, as an agent cannot reliably determine which tool to use without additional context.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_remote_server_status and get_server_status). The naming is clear and predictable, with no deviations in style or convention.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Server Status' domain. A typical status monitoring system might include more operations like list_servers, start_server, or stop_server. The minimal toolset limits functionality and suggests incomplete coverage.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for server status management. It only provides read operations (get status) with no ability to list servers, modify states, or handle other common tasks like restarting or checking logs. This will likely cause agent failures when more comprehensive actions are needed.