LM Studio MCP Connector & Daemon

lmstudio_pool_status

Inspect multi-instance pool metrics, load balancing distribution, and failover status to verify which LM Studio instances are active and how traffic is routed.

Instructions

Inspect multi-instance pool metrics, load balancing distribution, and failover status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lmstudio_pool_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation but this is never stated, and there's no mention of permissions, rate limits, what metrics are returned, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating exactly what gets inspected, with no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could explain what the returned metrics look like (fields, format). It names the three categories inspected but leaves the return shape and read-only nature implicit, making it only minimally complete for a monitoring tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

Uses a specific verb 'inspect' paired with concrete resources (pool metrics, load balancing distribution, failover status). An agent can tell this is a status/metrics read, distinct from siblings like lmstudio_health, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with lmstudio_health.

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?

Provides no indication of when to use this versus lmstudio_health or other monitoring tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives to route the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server