Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
timps-swarm

timps-swarm

by Sandeeprdy1729
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

timps_backup_sentinel

Audit backup health by checking Time Machine backups, uncommitted git repositories, and untracked large files. Get a risk score and backup script.

Instructions

Audit backup health: Time Machine last backup time, all local git repos with uncommitted/unpushed changes, large files on Desktop/Documents not tracked by git or cloud. Returns a risk score and backup script.

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": "timps_backup_sentinel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states outcomes (risk score, backup script) but doesn't clarify whether the script is executed, written to a file, or returned as text. It doesn't mention permissions, potential side effects (e.g., creating backup scripts), or safety implications. The ambiguity around what 'backup script' means is a transparency gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and audit scope. It's efficient and readable. No 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?

The description doesn't explain the output format or how the backup script is delivered (file? console?), and with no output schema the agent lacks that context. Given it's a multi-part audit producing both results and a script, this is a moderate gap.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given there are no parameters to document.

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?

The description starts with a clear action verb (

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of sibling tools (e.g., timps_full_checkup, timps_disk_space_prophet), the agent has no basis to choose this over others. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this is the right tool are given.

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