一个模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，提供对各种本地系统实用程序的访问。此服务器可与 Cursor 和其他兼容 MCP 的客户端配合使用，以快速访问系统信息。
该服务器提供以下实用程序：
时间和日期：以各种格式获取当前本地时间和日期，包括星期几
主机名：获取系统的主机名
Public IP ：获取机器的公网IP地址
目录列表：列出指定目录的内容
Node.js 版本：获取当前运行的 Node.js 版本
端口检查器：检查特定端口上正在运行的进程
思考工具：在开发过程中记录、检索和分析想法
Related MCP server: Simple MCP Server
pnpm add -g localutils-mcp-server您也可以直接使用 npx 运行服务器，而无需全局安装它：
npx localutils-mcp-server如果全局安装：
localutils-mcp使用 npx：
npx localutils-mcp-server通过在 Cursor 的设置中将该服务器配置为 MCP 服务器，即可与 Cursor 一起使用。
打开光标设置
导航至 MCP 部分
添加一个新的 MCP 服务器，配置如下：
{
"name": "localutils",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["localutils-mcp-server"]
}您可以使用 MCP 检查器测试服务器：
pnpm run inspector这将在http://localhost:5173启动 MCP 检查器。
get_time_and_date以各种格式返回当前本地时间和日期，包括：
当地时间
当地日期
星期几
ISO 8601 格式
Unix时间戳
get_hostname返回运行 MCP 服务器的机器的主机名。
get_public_ip返回运行 MCP 服务器的机器的公共 IP 地址。
list_directory列出指定目录的内容。
参数：
path （字符串，必需）：要列出的目录路径
get_node_version返回 MCP 服务器运行环境的 Node.js 版本信息。
check_port检查特定端口上正在运行的进程。
参数：
port （数字或字符串，必需）：要检查的端口号（1-65535）。字符串值将自动转换为数字。
示例响应（macOS/Linux）：
{
"processes": [
{
"command": "node",
"pid": "12345",
"user": "username",
"fd": "12u",
"type": "IPv4",
"device": "0x1234567890",
"size": "0t0",
"node": "TCP",
"name": "*:3000 (LISTEN)"
}
],
"message": "Found 1 process(es) using port 3000"
}think用时间戳记录新想法。
参数：
thought （字符串，必需）：要记录的思想内容
响应示例：
{
"success": true,
"data": {
"message": "Thought recorded successfully"
}
}get_thoughts检索所有记录的想法。
响应示例：
{
"success": true,
"data": {
"thoughts": [
{
"timestamp": "2025-03-24T15:00:00.000Z",
"content": "Need to update the documentation"
}
]
}
}clear_thoughts清除所有记录的想法。
响应示例：
{
"success": true,
"data": {
"message": "All thoughts cleared"
}
}get_thought_stats返回有关记录的想法的统计数据。
响应示例：
{
"success": true,
"data": {
"totalThoughts": 1,
"averageLength": 28,
"oldestThought": "2025-03-24T15:00:00.000Z",
"newestThought": "2025-03-24T15:00:00.000Z"
}
}pnpm run buildpnpm run devpnpm test此仓库包含一个预提交钩子，可在每次提交之前自动构建服务器。这确保了构建文件在仓库中始终保持最新。
构建文件夹包含在 git 存储库中，以便更轻松地使用带有 npx 的包，而无需先构建它。
克隆存储库后设置预提交钩子：
pnpm install这将安装依赖项并通过 Husky 设置预提交钩子。
麻省理工学院
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Port number to check (1-65535) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Clear all recorded thoughts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a destructive action (clearing all thoughts) but does not disclose behavioral traits like permanence, undo capability, or confirmation requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which is only partially met.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully specifies what the tool does. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear all recorded thoughts' uses a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('recorded thoughts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_thoughts' (retrieval) and 'think' (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the purpose is clear, the description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using 'get_thoughts' first) or warnings about irreversible action. However, for a simple deletion tool, the lack of detailed guidelines is less critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the hostname of the machine running the MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states what is returned; no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, caching, permissions). Acceptable for a simple getter but does not exceed minimal expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words; efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters; baseline for no params is 4. The description does not need to add param details and adds no redundant information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'returns' and the resource 'hostname of the machine running the MCP server'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_public_ip which returns an IP address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives, but the simplicity of the tool makes usage obvious. Lacks exclusions or when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the Node.js version information of the environment running the MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. The description indicates a read-only operation via 'Returns', which is sufficient for this simple retrieval tool. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose, with no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no input parameters, no output schema, no complex behavior), the description covers all necessary context for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter description is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource 'Node.js version information of the environment running the MCP server', which is distinct from sibling tools like get_hostname or get_public_ip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidelines or alternatives are given, but the purpose is self-explanatory: use it to get the Node.js version. For a simple tool, this implied usage is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the public IP address of the machine running the MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the basic behavior but does not disclose any potential side effects, network dependencies, or caching behavior. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains the return value clearly and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 0 parameters; schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description adds nothing beyond.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the public IP address of the server, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_hostname and get_node_version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, but the tool is simple and self-contained with no alternatives, making its usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve all recorded thoughts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description lacks behavioral details such as output format, ordering, or limits. Minimal disclosure beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four-word sentence is maximally concise and front-loaded with the action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out return format and relationship to siblings like get_thought_stats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description cannot add value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it does not contradict or confuse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'all recorded thoughts', distinguishing from siblings like think (create) and get_thought_stats (statistics).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives like get_thought_stats or clear_thoughts. Agent must infer usage from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get statistics about recorded thoughts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get statistics' implies a read operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty thought list), performance implications, or whether it modifies any state. Minimal behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It could be more informative without being verbose, e.g., specifying 'count, average, etc.'. Still, it is front-loaded and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what statistics are returned (e.g., count of thoughts, time range, average length). For a tool with no parameters, the description should provide a clearer picture of the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the input schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but according to rules, baseline for 0 params is 4. No information is missing about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get statistics about recorded thoughts', which is a verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_thoughts' (which likely returns the full list) and 'think' (which creates a thought). However, it remains vague about what specific statistics are returned (e.g., count, frequency).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it provides summary data compared to 'get_thoughts' listing all thoughts, nor does it suggest prerequisites like 'think' first. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the current time, date, day of week, and timestamp in various formats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns multiple pieces of data but does not specify the exact formats or whether the result is a single object or separate values. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but could be more precise.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what is returned. However, it could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., JSON object) or listing the exact formats. Despite this, it is sufficient for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). Following the guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no param information, but none is needed. The description implicitly confirms no inputs required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns current time, date, day of week, and timestamp in various formats. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current time, date...') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that provide other system information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hostname or get_public_ip. However, the purpose is self-explanatory, so usage is implied. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Directory path to list |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | The thought content to record |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_portclear_thoughtsget_hostnameget_node_versionget_public_ipget_thought_statsget_thoughtsget_time_and_datelist_directorythinkScored across 10 tools
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose, even though some lack descriptions. The 'get_*' tools clearly differentiate between hostname, node version, public IP, time/date, and thoughts, while 'list_directory', 'check_port', and the thought management tools are all distinct.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case pattern, predominantly using verb_noun structure (e.g., 'get_hostname', 'list_directory', 'clear_thoughts'). The single verb 'think' is a minor deviation but still fits the pattern.
10 tools is a reasonable number for a local utilities server, covering both system information and a thought management module without overloading the surface.
The thought management tools are complete, but the system utilities are sparse, lacking common operations like disk space, CPU usage, or process listing. This leaves notable gaps for a 'Local Utilities' server.
Remote MCP server exposing your Node Command fleet (files, shell, processes, browser) to AI hosts.
Read-only developer, date, finance, and text utilities. Authless remote MCP server by Clean.tools.
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
Hosted MCP server for live public-data APIs and Skills for AI agents.
