Skip to main content
Glama
PetShopBros

lowdown-proxy

by PetShopBros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_lowdown

Check recorded data for an MCP server, agent, or tool before connecting: registry details, scanner observations, and interaction success rates.

Instructions

Look up what Lowdown has recorded about an MCP server, agent, tool, or service before choosing or connecting to it. For MCP Registry servers it returns, in order: a registry block (what the official MCP Registry declares, and changes in the last 30 days); a scanner block (daily Lowdown Scanner observations of initialize and tools/list over the last 30 days, one entry per day, days without an observation and why, the tool names observed, and declared versus observed version and hosts); and interactions reported by agents (count, outcomes, success rate). The success rate counts organic tool calls and agent reports only; protocol requests, rejected requests, and seeded or synthetic records are counted separately. These are recorded facts, not scores. A server outside the observed sample returns observed: false in scanner, which says nothing about its status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesMCP Registry name with the mcp: prefix (e.g. 'mcp:io.github.user/server'), a short name, or an id such as 'agent:some-agent-id'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.15
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Previous value: -"Identifier of the agent/tool/service. e.g. 'mcp:vendor/tool-name' or 'agent:some-agent-id'"New value: +"MCP Registry name with the mcp: prefix (e.g. 'mcp:io.github.user/server'), a short name, or an id such as 'agent:some-agent-id'"
  2. First observedv0.1.11

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so substantively: it details the returned blocks, clarifies that the success rate excludes protocol/rejected/synthetic records, and pre-empts misreading by explaining that 'observed: false' says nothing about status. It does not cover auth or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized by returned block in a logical order. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause conveys distinct semantics (block structure, exclusions, the observed:false caveat) rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return semantics itself — and it does, enumerating the registry, scanner, and interaction blocks plus their caveats. Nothing essential for interpreting the result is left out.

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 'target' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including accepted formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('what Lowdown has recorded about an MCP server, agent, tool, or service') with the scope of entities enumerated. The purpose is unambiguous and easily separable from get_node_stats or record_interaction.

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?

Explicitly situates usage: 'before choosing or connecting to it', which tells the agent when this lookup is warranted. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or a when-not condition, so it falls just below the top tier.

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