Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Moondream MCP Server

Moondream MCP Server

by NightTrek
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

test

Echoes a supplied message back to verify Moondream MCP server functionality and confirm the connection and request handling work correctly.

Instructions

Test tool to verify server functionality

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesTest message to echo back

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about side effects, return value (an echo of the input, per the schema), latency, or auth requirements. For a diagnostic tool it should at minimum say it returns the message unchanged and has no persistent effect.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing.

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, with one required parameter and no output schema, but the description still omits the one thing an agent needs: that the message is echoed back and no state changes. With no annotations, that gap is meaningful even for a trivial 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% and the single 'message' parameter is fully documented as the text to echo back, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Test tool to verify server functionality" gives a purpose beyond the bare name 'test', but it stays generic: it never says the tool echoes a message back or whether it checks connectivity, auth, or schema parsing. Against siblings like analyze_image and analyze_webpage, it reads as a diagnostic rather than a real operation, but the exact function is left vague.

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 versus any other tool, no mention of prerequisites, and no note that it should be used only for connectivity/sanity checks. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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