OpsChugex LocalOps MCP

by alexcgodwin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Network Interfaces

network_interfaces

Read-onlyIdempotent

List local network interfaces and their assigned IP addresses without performing network probing.

Instructions

List local network interfaces and assigned addresses. No network probing is performed.

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": "network_interfaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`interfaces`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that 'No network probing is performed' – an important scope guarantee that the tool only reads local configuration rather than scanning the network.

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?

Two short sentences, the resource is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and annotations plus the description cover safety and scope. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only an explicit note on when to prefer it over system_info would add value.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('local network interfaces and assigned addresses'), which is clear and distinct from generic siblings like system_info or system_health. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context of use (inspecting local host configuration) is implied by the description but never stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are named among the many sibling system-inspection tools. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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