OpsChugex LocalOps MCP

by alexcgodwin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Service Status

service_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect one Windows or systemd service to check its current status, with service names strictly validated before use.

Instructions

Inspect one Windows or systemd service. Service names are strictly validated before use.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>"
    },
    "name": "service_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serviceName`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the validation constraint ('service names are strictly validated before use'), which is genuinely new context, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or pagination.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; both sentences carry weight with no filler. Slightly terse rather than padded.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool the description is nearly complete; only the accepted name format and the validation rules remain unstated.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies only minLength/maxLength with no semantics. The description adds that the name is strictly validated, which is useful, but never states the expected format (e.g. 'nginx' vs 'nginx.service') or what makes a name valid.

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 (inspect) and resource (a single Windows or systemd service), and the word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_services. It stops short of naming that sibling, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 singular scope implies use when a specific service name is already known, versus listing all services, but no alternative is named and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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