OpsChugex LocalOps MCP

by alexcgodwin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

System Information

system_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return bounded OS and host metadata to support read-only system inspection without shell access.

Instructions

Return bounded operating-system and host metadata using Node.js system APIs.

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": "system_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`machine`	Yes
`release`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes
`platform`	Yes
`architecture`	Yes
`uptimeSeconds`	Yes
`logicalCpuCount`	Yes
`operatingSystem`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the word 'bounded', hinting at a truncated/limited payload, but says nothing about what is truncated or how.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of scope detail rather than being a model of informative concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile for this zero-param read. The remaining gap is scope definition relative to the dense set of more specific sibling diagnostics.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameters needs documenting and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 (Return) and resource (operating-system and host metadata), which is clear on its own. However, with 22 siblings including uptime, cpu_status, memory_status, disk_status and network_interfaces, it does not say how it differs from those narrower tools or what 'bounded' scope actually covers.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative among the many overlapping diagnostic siblings. The agent must guess whether to call this or the specific cpu/memory/disk tools.

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