macOS Tools MCP Server

by Zhuoli

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different macOS system components: battery, disks, network services (listing vs. details), and system profile. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive names (e.g., battery_status, diskutil_list). However, there is a minor deviation with 'network_service_details' and 'network_services' using slightly different naming styles (details vs. services) compared to the others, though still readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a macOS system utilities server. Each tool serves a specific, non-trivial purpose (battery, disks, network, system info), and there are no redundant or missing tools that would make the set feel too thin or bloated.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers key macOS system areas (battery, storage, network, hardware/software info), but there are notable gaps in common system operations like process management, file operations, or user management. While the provided tools are useful, the surface is incomplete for broader system administration tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns structured data but doesn't explain how it behaves—such as whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain parameter semantics or behavioral traits, which are needed for effective use despite the output schema covering return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'requested data type' but doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage and only lists 'data_type' with a default. No details on valid data types, examples, or constraints are provided, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Return structured data') and resource ('from `system_profiler`'), specifying the tool's function to retrieve system profiling information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'battery_status' or 'diskutil_list' that also return system data, missing explicit distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'requested data type' but doesn't specify what data types are available, when to choose this over sibling tools, or any prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the service doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It directly states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage, behavioral transparency, and parameter details, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool selection and invocation.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'service_name' is used to identify the network service, but doesn't add meaning beyond that (e.g., format, examples, or valid values). With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema details.
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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('interface details for a network service'), specifying what information is retrieved (IP, subnet, router). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'network_services' by focusing on details rather than listing services, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific network service, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'network_services' (which might list services).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what command will be executed ('pmset -g batt') but doesn't describe what happens when invoked - whether it requires permissions, how long it takes, what format the output will be in, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states what the tool does and how it works. Every word earns its place: 'Show current battery information' defines the purpose, and 'reported by `pmset -g batt`' provides implementation context. There's zero waste or redundancy.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its complexity level. However, for a system tool that executes a shell command, the description could benefit from mentioning typical output format or common use cases. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but additional context about the tool's behavior would be helpful.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This earns a baseline 4 for parameter semantics as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show current battery information' with the specific source 'reported by `pmset -g batt`'. This provides a specific verb ('show') and resource ('battery information') with implementation details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'system_profile' which might also provide system information.
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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus using 'system_profile' or other system monitoring tools, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, timing considerations, or limitations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what the output looks like (though an output schema exists), whether it requires admin privileges, if it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the specific command, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its simplicity.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage this to explain return values or other aspects, making it minimally adequate.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it's complete in this regard.
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 clearly states the action ('List all disks and partitions') and the specific command used ('using `diskutil list`'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'system_profile' which might also provide system information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 like 'system_profile' or other system information tools. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (`networksetup`), which adds useful context about how the information is gathered, but doesn't describe output format, potential errors, or system dependencies. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since none exist), but it's minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('List configured network services') and adds relevant context ('as reported by `networksetup`'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the data source, which is sufficient for a listing tool. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage guidance.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured network services'), and mentions the source (`networksetup`). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_service_details', which might provide more detailed information about individual services.
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 like 'network_service_details' or other network-related tools. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp101 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zhuoli/mcp101/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zhuoli/mcp101)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp101 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zhuoli/mcp101/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zhuoli/mcp101)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Zhuoli/mcp101'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server